Auke - my focus is primarily on "application of the framework in
order to explore the possibilities." and I consider this very
different from text exegeses. I do continue to point out the
distinction between the two- and the problem that for some on this
list, the exploration of the framework is not considered acceptable.
..and the focus is only on the text' .
I am very cautious about such an isolate view of 'text exegeses'
for, to me at least, this seems to consider the text as the only area
suitable for analysis, and at least on this list, it seems to reject
or consider irrelevant the examination of the possible pragmatic
results of the framework outlined in that text. Indeed, it almost
seems that any venturing into pragmatics seems to be considered
straying from 'the truth' of Peirce.
Certainly - one can do both. Or one or the other. But this shouldn't
lead to a denial of the validity of the two areas of research. And
even, of the necessity for both. Theories must be examined
pragmatically. The two are bonded. I don't deny textual exegeses -
but I think that an isolate focus on this can have problems.
I think a rigid focus on the text leads one to the claims that, for
example, certain terms have only one meaning; that other terms 'have
never been used by Peirce' - and so on, with the result that the
paradigmatic realities of the framework as operative within other
areas beyond philosophy - such as in physics, biology, societal - are
never examined- and a rigid textual authoritarianism is set up.
Equally, one can stray so far from the analytic framework of Peirce
that it no longer is valid as an extrapolation of his work. I do not
think that I can be accused of this - though a few on this list do,
of course, make such a claim against me. That's their prerogative -
and I have no problem with that. But- my only request is that such
assertions be done without overtones of condescension, contempt and
disdain.
Edwina
On Tue 30/03/21 12:12 PM , "Auke van Breemen"
[email protected] sent:
Edwina,
That was not quite the intention of my question. I understand the
frustration, but:
I did not want to ask what you are trying to do in general. I wanted
to know if you intended to point to the distinction between: text
exegese aiming at best at laying bare the framework and application
of the framework in order to explore the possibilities.
So, I am still curious.
best,
Auke
Op 30 maart 2021 om 17:14 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke, list
Thanks for your comments. My answer - of course I wasn't doing a
textual analysis but exploring the pragmatic applications of Peircean
theory.
I'm used to the sneers and condescension of some, only a few, list
members, but it does always surprise me.
For example, using such terms to define my work as 'quasi-physical,
misreading, idiosyncratic intellectual construction' is, in my view,
'ad hominem', because these are simple derogatory comments rather
than any analysis - - and to deny that it's ad hominem because my
Name wasn't used - is a fallacy in itself, for my work and words are
indexically and symbolically connected to me. Therefore - if you
quote the words - then, you are referring to the person who wrote
those words!!
Equally, for JAS to reject the use of the 'charitable term' of 'In
my view' when presenting his interpretations, is an assertion that he
considers his interpretation to be the Truth-of-Peirce. That's quite
an assertion. And I note that he didn't explain why four of the ten
sign classes do not use 3ns in the mediative node.
I'm used to attacks from these few on the list that I mustn't use
current terminology such as 'input, output, function, node etc' -
despite the FACT that other scholars in Peirce -just not on this
particular list - DO use them. But the condescension and sneers of
disdain - that's another issue.
I'm interested in the pragmatics of the Peircean analytic framework.
I'm interested in seeing how it explains the biological realm - and
the societal realm [societies understood as massive semiosic
processes]...and I continue to think that it CAN explain what's going
on - in a very insightful and productive way.
Edwina
On Tue 30/03/21 10:18 AM , Auke van Breemen [email protected]
sent:
Gary,
So you did not for a moment consider the thought that Edwina was
pointing to a distinction between text exegese aiming at best at
laying bare the framework and application of the framework in order
to explore the possibilities.
Which in my estimate is what she is pointing at.
Luckily enough we can ask Edwina directly and check our opinions.
Edwina, what was your intention?
best,
AukeOp 30 maart 2021 om 15:49 schreef [email protected]:
Auke, to answer your question, yes, it is a sincere opinion about
the intended meaning of the word “real” in the words commented
upon in Jon’s post. (Intended by the author of those words,
obviously.)
Gary f
} {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ living the time
From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Auke van
Breemen
Sent: 30-Mar-21 09:45
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean
Category Theory
Gary F.
You wrote:
ET: 'We can't examine the framework of Peirce in any functioning of
the real world; we can only discuss His Words'
GF: Evidently ET does not consider the world of scholarly and public
communication to be “real.” This is an example of the extreme
metaphysical assumptions that I referred to in my earlier post which
was directed to Edwina.
--
Before I comment, a question. Is this a sincere opinion expressed
after carefully reading the words commented upon?
best,
Auke
Op 30 maart 2021 om 14:49 schreef [email protected]:
Jon, thanks for these comments on my analysis of the phenomenon of
misquotation. I’ve inserted a few of my own below.
Gary f.
From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Jon Alan
Schmidt
Sent: 29-Mar-21 21:46
Edwina, List:
ET: Actually, no, I don't think that your outline is a pragmatic
analysis of what I wrote; it's simply an ad hominem attack on me.
JAS: On the contrary, an ad hominem attack is directed against a
person, while Gary F.'s post was very clearly directed against
certain positions expressed in the particular post that he quoted and
analyzed.
GF: In order to analyze the phenomenon of misquotation, I needed a
concrete example, so I picked the first one I came across in the list
postings. Since I never identified the author of the post, calling it
“an ad hominem attack” shows a complete misreading.
ET: A pragmatic analysis would actually examine the meaning of my
posts ...
JAS: That is exactly what Gary F. did.
GF: My phenomenological/semiotic analysis was an attempt to show
how the chosen text works semiosically, i.e. how it means. After
that, my pragmaticistic analysis attempted to show what practical
effects a misquotation can have on the real world of dialogue and
public communication.
ET: 'We can't examine the framework of Peirce in any functioning of
the real world; we can only discuss His Words'
GF: Evidently ET does not consider the world of scholarly and public
communication to be “real.” This is an example of the extreme
metaphysical assumptions that I referred to in my earlier post which
was directed to Edwina. The irony here is that for ET, as shown in her
dialogue with Jon, her own intellectual construction of a
quasi-physical theory (based apparently on a misreading of one of
Peirce’s diagrams and a few selected quotes) is supposed to be
about the “functioning of the real world” because it is about
the physical world — even though it generates no empirically
testable predictions in the realm of physics, but simply attempts to
translate some common knowledge of that real world into terms that
she claims to be Peircean. — Now these remarks of mine will
certainly be read by ET as “an ad hominem attack,” because that
is how she reads any criticism, such as Jon’s critical comments in
other threads, of the idiosyncratic intellectual constructions she
claims to be Peircean. The predictable response is yet another
counter-attack based on that misreading. Personally I think it’s
time to opt out of the whole vicious cycle. So I will be taking
Edwina’s advice about deleting her posts.
JAS: This is an excellent example of a straw man, since no one on
the List has ever advocated any such restriction. Instead, what I and
others have maintained is that if the framework we are examining as it
functions in the real world is not consistent with Peirce's actual
words, then it is not "the framework of Peirce" at all. It might be a
framework inspired by Peirce's actual words, and it might use (or
misuse) a lot of his terminology, but it does not conform with his
own thinking as expressed in his voluminous writings. Nevertheless,
it might still be a framework that works very well in its specific
context--disagreeing with Peirce is perfectly acceptable, even
laudable where he gets something wrong--but it is important to
acknowledge where there is disagreement rather than pretending that
one's own framework is the same as what Peirce himself describes.
ET: My advice - since you reject my analyses is: just delete my
posts.
It is hard to ignore a post that purports to be accurately conveying
Peirce's thought but instead is falsely claiming his endorsement for
the author's own idiosyncratic ideas. Gary F. calls attention to the
specific case of misquoting CP 6.61 in such a way as to give the
impression that it was Peirce's view that "the whole action of the
mind [is] a part of the physical universe," when it turns out that he
was explicitly repudiating that view in the actual text. A reputable
scholar would gladly welcome correction rather than doubling down on
such a misleading attribution. As Peirce says in reference to his
nominalistic mistake in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (CP 5.403, EP
1:132, 1878) nearly three decades later ...
CSP: If the reader imagines that the propounder of the crystal
question will be annoyed, instead of being gratified, at being set
right, he may take my word for it that he does not know the man, who
would incomparably rather undergo the mortification and substantial
loss of credit attaching to having been proved a blunderer, rather
than that anybody should be deceived by any fallacious argument of
his.(R 320:30[28], 1907).
May we all strive for that level of commitment to pursuing the
truth, including frank admission of our errors when they are called
to our attention.
GF: Amen to that!
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [5] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
