List, For me at the heart of this troubling exchange, at least for me, is a question raised concerning "quoting out of context." The *Wikipedia* article on this defines it this way:
"*Quoting out of context* (sometimes referred to as *contextomy* or *quote mining*) is an informal fallacy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy> in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." This is a matter which I fear could get lost, or at least obscured, in the sea of words being exchanged. I'd like to lay it out 'bare'. so to speak, so that the parties involved in the dispute, as well as List members, can better decide what's at stake here in this single, critical point. Here are the passages in Gary f's which prompted the reaction by Edwina and further comments by Gary f, Jon Alan Schmidt, and others. [Gf] The paragraph cited in the text above, CP 6.61, begins with one of many reasons Peirce gives for rejecting the doctrine of the necessitarians: [Gf quoting CSP] “Necessitarianism cannot logically stop short of making the whole action of the mind a part of the physical universe.” [Gf] But in the text we are analyzing, this text is “quoted” as follows: [note: here Gary f quotes ET for another message of hers] [ET] "he whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61. [Gf] The missing first letter of “the” is just an ordinary typo, but the “quote” as a whole exemplifies the phenomenon of *misquotation*. It not only represents the original text inaccurately, it represents Peirce as *asserting* an idea which in fact he was ascribing to the necessitarians, *against* whose doctrine he was arguing. (The rest of Peirce’s paragraph goes on to explain why that idea is untenable.) ⁂ Somewhat later in his message, after briefly discussing the matter of Donald Trump's lie that the 2020 election was "stolen," Gary f comments: Gf: The question [of Trump's lie] 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. There's more, but I think that enough to make the point I'm trying to get at. Slightly after giving the definition quoted above, the encyclopedia article adds this. The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context *per se* (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. This, I believe, points to the central question which prompted this exchange: the misquotation is used to support a view of Edwina's which is just the opposite of Peirce's own, indeed exactly a position he has been arguing *against*. So, was this an honest mistake or was it calculated to mislead. Only Edwina can answer that question. Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
