Auke, since you ask, Reading Edwina's reply to my question do you still think to have captured her intention?
Short answer: Yes. Edwina’s replies to your question (both of them) are all about “exegesis.” Her words that I was referring to have nothing to do with exegesis, and neither did my insertion into the exchange between Jon and Edwina have anything to do with exegesis. The whole subject is a red herring, as far as I can see. My post that Edwina reacted to so violently neither mentioned nor practiced exegesis, certainly not of the writings of Peirce. It was all about a text that she had written herself (though I didn’t mention that fact), considered as the context of an example of misquotation. (Observing that it was a misquotation hardly requires “exegesis”; it is obvious to any reader of Peirce who looks at the text she was misquoting.) The “pragmaticistic” part of my analysis went like this: [[ A further question arises when we focus on the Thirdness of this phenomenon, because then we have to consider the interpretant of the text we are examining (as well as its putative object, “Peircean analysis,” and the idea which it predicates of that object, “mind-is-matter.”) If we take the interpretant as the information conveyed to the reader, we ought to ask whether this particular misquotation belongs to the species of misinformation or disinformation. This distinction has become a matter of public debate lately, especially in the U.S., where it makes a crucial pragmatic difference whether a disseminated untruth is merely mistaken or was actually intended to deceive. Donald Trump’s lies about the “stolen election” are a paradigmatic example: were they “honest mistakes” (because he was himself misinformed) or were they criminal acts intended to subvert American democracy? Should disinformation sites be shut down by the social media platforms on which they appear? The question is nowhere near so consequential in the case of the misquotation we are analyzing, but it still makes a pragmatic difference. If it was just an “honest mistake” on the writer’s part, an honest scholar would own up to it when it was flagged, and perhaps correct it. But if it deliberately misrepresented Peirce’s views as conforming to the writer’s own idea, then it would be much more damaging to the scholar’s reputation for trustworthiness, at least among those familiar enough with Peirce’s writings to recognize the misrepresentation. ]] (Notice, by the way, the predominant presence of question marks and if-clauses in that analysis.) Edwina’s response to this (assuming she read it) was to say “I don't think that your outline is a pragmatic analysis of what I wrote”. The logical implication is that issues of misrepresentation in public discourse are not “pragmatic” because they have no bearing on what she considers to be the “real” world. I beg to differ on that point. If she thinks her revised and reworded version of Peirce’s categories for the purpose of applying them to biological and physical processes is more pertinent to “the real world” than critical thinking about patterns of public discourse, I differ on that point too. Anyway, this is the basis of my opinion of her intended meaning in the text you asked about. And again, the subject of exegesis has nothing to do with it. Edwina’s ad hominem attacks on me and others for allegedly “sneering” at her ideas are even less pertinent to the real real world. They are based entirely on her misreadings, not of Peirce, but of other posts to this list. If I didn’t know better — as I do, from many years of reading Edwina’s attacks on others, and her complaints about list members not taking an interest in her favorite adaptations of Peircean concepts — I’d think she was one of those trolls on social media whose main objective is to raise the emotional temperature of the dialogue and stir up controversy. But to me it doesn’t matter any more what her motivations are. You shall know them by their fruits. Gary f. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen Sent: 30-Mar-21 13:27 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean Category Theory 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
