Gary F, You know very well that we are not discussing Phaneroscopy, iconoscopy and peircean category theory. We are conversing about debating morals.
You wrote: and you claim that the reader would “expect the error at the end” because of the earlier contradictions. - Where did I claim something 'because of the earlier contradictions'? You suggest with this passage that besides the conflict between the last sentence and the preceding sentences, I am of the opinion that the earlier sentences are already contradictionary. Auke > Op 31 maart 2021 om 14:51 schreef [email protected]: > > > Auke, > > AVB: I rename this thread semiotics. To be frank, I try to find out what > to focus on. > > GF: OK, you don’t want to focus on Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean > Category Theory, as I did in my post. Fair enough, and I suppose your > pointing out of a self-contradiction (“conflict”) in ET’s paragraph can count > as “semiotics,” and so can your remarks about my post. But those remarks are > inaccurate, at least here: > > AVB: 2. What is missing is a consideration of the quote in the context of > the paragraph itself and of the mail in its whole. > > GF: The first part is not true: I did quote the whole paragraph and > analyzed it as a whole, precisely to show the context of the misquotation > (i.e. of the token of the type of phenomenon I was focussing on.) The still > larger context of “the mail in its whole” was not relevant to the > phaneroscopic/iconoscopic analysis, and I don’t think it’s fair to blame me > for doing that instead of the “semiotic” analysis that you prefer. > > Your analysis of the paragraph seems to focus mainly on the expectations > created in the reader’s mind as he is reading it, and you claim that the > reader would “expect the error at the end” because of the earlier > contradictions. Maybe so, but to what end are you making that claim? It looks > to me as if you are suggesting or implying an answer to the question which, > as Gary R observed, only Edwina can answer. > > As for your questions at the end, > > AVB: Who is the one that tears quotes out of the context? > > As Gary R pointed out, quoting Wikipedia, everybody who quotes part of a > prior text takes the quote out of its original context. But “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.” > > AVB: To what end? > > GF: You already know what my purpose was, or at least I’ve made it quite > explicit. (If you are still asking about my purpose, that seems to imply that > you don’t believe me, although you don’t say why.) As for your purpose in > taking quotes out of context, I hazarded a guess above, but it’s only a > guess, as you haven’t made it explicit. And as for Edwina’s purpose in taking > quotes out of context, I have not hazarded a guess, and again, only she can > answer that. > > Gary f. > > > > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen > Sent: 31-Mar-21 07:45 > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Semiotics, was : RE: Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and > Peircean Category Theory > > > > Gary F, > > I rename this thread semiotics. To be frank, I try to find out what to > focus on. If I understand you well, you focus on: > > 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 > > --- > > But if I look at your analysis, I would say you focus on only one > sentence: > > "he whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61 > > -- > > I is by comparing this sentence with the source text, that you draw your > conclusions. Two remarks can be made: > > 1. Since the listers know, or are easily able to find the whole mail, > they know that it is Edwina about whom the unfavorable conclusions are drawn. > > 2. What is missing is a consideration of the quote in the context of the > paragraph itself and of the mail in its whole. > > If we take the paragraph, the first thing that strikes my eye is the > conflict between the first sentence and the last. At least at one side of the > pharagraph one would expect an error. Given the greater weight of first > sentences above latter sentences in a paragraph, and looking at the > repetition 'matter is effete mind', I expect the error at the end. Add to > this that there also is a typo, and we may assume a moment of lessend > attention. > > That raises the questions: > > Who is the one that tears quotes out of the context? > > and, > > To what end? > > Best, > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > Op 31 maart 2021 om 13:07 schreef [email protected] > > mailto:[email protected] : > > > > Auke, yes, that is the message that I quoted a paragraph from to > > provide a concrete text for “phaneroscopic” analysis. My analysis was not > > of the whole “mail” but of the paragraph containing the misquotation, since > > that was the immediate context of the phenomenon I chose to focus on. This > > has never been an “issue”, so I don’t see the point of your question to > > Gary R. Are you suggesting that the whole message, or even its author, > > should have been the subject of my analysis? > > > > Gary f. > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
