What I find incredible is the depth of the hostility to my words. Gary F uses an analogy with Trump (whom he obviously loathes, ) using such terms as liar, deliberate disinformation etc.. when if you will read my post, the quotes about mind do not contradict each other, ie, all show mind is operative in matter. The 6.61 necessitarian quote refers in addition to someone who ignores the roles of 1ns and 2ns.
Again, what stuns me is the depth of the anger and vitriol. I am not a liar, I am not deliberately misinforming or disinforming. This flare up began when Gary F asserted that I ignored the conceptual semiosis and focused only on the physical world ...and JAS insisted that all mediation is 3ns. My reaction, showing that I DO refer to the semiosis of the conceptual realm (I usually don’t refer to my publications but there are two books of mine that deal with such areas)..and asked JAS how four of the ten classes, which examine the semiosic triad, have mediation in a mode other than 3ns. Then suddenly I am accused of the most heinous of crimes, of deliberately lying and misinforming ..when there is no evidence of such, when the quote doesn’t deny the validity of the other quotes about mind and matter. The fact that Peirce was examining the limited beliefs of a necessitarian outlook doesn’t negate that particular belief. And the endless insistence by JAS that one may not use terms , such as existence, except within one meaning or terms such as input or function...that too is unreal. Why bother to stay on the list? Only because there are a few who are incredible such as Robert Marty. Otherwise it would be neurotic of me to stay when I am met with such constant hostility. Edwina Sent from my iPad > On Mar 31, 2021, at 8:51 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]: > > 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.
