Gary R., > Op 31 maart 2021 om 14:58 schreef Gary Richmond <[email protected]>: > > 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. >
I don't fight that E's is an unlucky quote in this community. it would have been safer if she had choosen for a quote that states that mind is always embodied mind. > 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 of the opinion that these statements cannot be made without supporting proof. > 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." > This activity of semiosis (as in 'it inserts') as operative in the physical world, earlier points in the direction of agengy, then in the direction of an epiphenomenon. > 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. > Without supporting proof, quite an observation for a list manager to do. > 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 you are right, it will not be hard to find the quotes that warrant your conclusion. Without them you have no case, other then an appeal to the idols of the market. > If she has recently changed her mind about this, that would be most > interesting. > You mean from the position you attribute to her? Or do you mean her own position, which is not to be found in your assessment, but in her writings. best, Auke > 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] > mailto:[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] mailto:[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] > > > mailto:[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] > > > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > <[email protected] > > > > mailto:[email protected] > On Behalf Of Auke van > > > > Breemen > > > > Sent: 30-Mar-21 13:27 > > > > To: [email protected] mailto:[email protected] ; > > > > [email protected] mailto:[email protected] ; Auke van Breemen > > > > <[email protected] mailto:[email protected] > > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > mailto:[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] mailto:[email protected] . > > > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > > > [email protected] mailto:[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] mailto:[email protected] . > > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > > [email protected] mailto:[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.
