Gary F., You wrote:
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.) -- Reading Edwina's reply to my question do you still think to have captured her intention? Best, Auke Op 30 maart 2021 om 19:11 schreef Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>: > > 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 : > > > > > > </[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 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/ > > > > > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ 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] > > > > > > <[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 Christianhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > > > > > > > > > - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > > > http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > > > > > ► 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > > > ► 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > ► 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. > > > > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
