Gary, To be interested in, is not the same as to be engaged in. A civil person would provide an answer to my question about the wrong impression you raise about my words.
Auke > Op 31 maart 2021 om 16:10 schreef [email protected]: > > > Auke, if “debating morals” is what you want to do in this new thread, why > didn’t you name it that instead of “semiotics”? As for me, I’m not interested > in “debating” anything. I’m interested in engaging in a civil discourse about > human habits and how we need to change them in order to mitigate the damage > we are currently doing to life on earth: that’s what my blog and my book are > about. > > > > On the Peirce list, I’m interested in a civil dialogue about how Peirce’s > insights and ideas can contribute to that larger discourse. Frankly I don’t > see how your new thread contributes either to that or to the subject you > named in the subject line, and I think my own time would be better spent > improving the integration of genuine Peircean insights into Turning Signs, > which is itself an attempt to take physics, biology, systems theory, > psychology, ecology, hermeneutics, sociology, cognitive science, linguistics > and much else into account within a semiotically-oriented study of the living > systems intervolved on this planet. So that’s what I intend to do. Good luck > with your debate about morals. > > > > Gary f. > > > > } The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself. [G. > Bateson] { > > https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time > > > > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen > Sent: 31-Mar-21 09:05 > To: [email protected]; Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Semiotics, was : RE: Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, > and Peircean Category Theory > > > > 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] > > mailto:[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] > > mailto:[email protected] > > <[email protected] > > mailto:[email protected] > On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen > > Sent: 31-Mar-21 07:45 > > To: Peirce-L <[email protected] > > mailto:[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 > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
