Auke, List, I'm not sure what you're aiming at so I'll try a slightly different approach.
A minute analysis of the passage in question is revealing. [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. In her misquote, it is clear that Edwina is aware of the entire sentence since she modifies the fragment she includes by adding "is" in brackets --so she writes: "mind [is] a part of the physical universe" to make it grammatically correct. To my way of thinking this strongly suggests that she was well aware of the meaning of the entire sentence, choosing not to include the first part of it as it would have contradicted her general way of looking at mind/matter -- and despite some contradictory other snippets and remarks in the email you quoted: she generally sees mind is what today we'd call an 'epiphenomenon'. I am sure that if someone had the time and interest that they could find her writing something to that effect many times on the List. There are suggestions of it even in the email you quoted in its entirety: ET: "semiosis [. . .] inserts a mediative process within what is a dyadic interaction." I see the email taken as a whole as something of an anomaly among her many comments on the list which hold matter as primal, mind as secondary. So for me the message in the email you quoted was a confusing mix of contradictions, especially when considered within the context of the general thrust of her position on the matter as expressed in many of the messages posted to the List, perhaps in recent years especially those addressed to JAS. It seems to me that ET's expressed view strongly tends towards the theory that matter is primal and that mind emerges out of a material substratum, that she is, to use Peirce's language, something of a "necessitarian." CSP “Necessitarianism cannot logically stop short of making the whole action of the mind a part of the physical universe.” For ET, "mind [is] a part of the physical universe" If she has recently changed her mind about this, that would be most interesting. 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 Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:38 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > > Since you are raising the issue of quoting lets first try to get clear > about the text(s) quoted from. I did a search in the archives and found > this mail from Edwina: > > 27. März 2021 um 19:55 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > > > Terry, list > > My view of the triadic semiosis is that it inserts a mediative process > within what is a dyadic interaction. Notice, using the ten classes of signs > 2.227 - that not all the mediation is in a mode of Thirdness; it can be in > 2ns or 1st. Indeed, in three of the ten classes, mediation is in a mode of > 2ns - the famous sinsign set. > > That is, between the Object and the Interpretant is a process that removes > the dyadic interaction from being a purely mechanical interaction and opens > it to interpretation by both the Object and the Interpretant sites/nodes. > As Peirce says, semiosis is an action, an influence, which involves > co-operation of three subjects: O-R-I. > > But the point is - the triad enables complexity-of-outcome. If you have a > universe that only operates by direct physical contact, then, it will > rapidly entropically dissolve. If you insert a capacity for > rejecting chaos, a capacity for laws that rule over the mechanical contact, > then, you enable continuity and reproduction and also, diversity. You get a > 'complex adaptive system', which inserts a capacity for self-organization > [that mediative process] and stops entropy fast. > > And since matter-is-mind within Peircean analysis, then, this triadic > process is operative throughout the physical, chemical, biological and > conceptual realms. 'Matter is effete mind" 6.25. And "what we call matter > is not completely dead bu is merely mind hidebound with habits" 6.158. "he > whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61 > > No, 1ns doesn't become 2ns or 3ns. The experience itself goes through > various categorical phases. > > Edwina > > > This is the mail Gary F takes as his matter for analyzis, which in its > turn instigated Edwina's Heh, this is fun message. Do we agree upon this > issue? Or do you have other sources to add? > > Auke > > > Op 31 maart 2021 om 4:41 schreef Gary Richmond <[email protected]>: > > 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. > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
