Dear Auke, Gary, list,
Sadly, this is how good intentions often go awry. I’m sure I am not the first person to notice this. That is, I *expect* wise persons to have experienced and even intended to make prescriptions on how best to work ourselves out of such situations.. because wise. The primary problem I see is that when things get *hard*, the *response* is “You do you, let me do me.. and then we walk away.” Given such repetitive behaviors of evasion and disavowal- strategic, even-, do you know of any particular rules that Peirce may have gifted us from which we could benefit? For I shudder to think with all this attention on rules of conduct, Peirce’s writings, and our publicly acknowledged reverence for him, that if the recommendation were there and we do not engage in it (fail to recognize it even), then we would admit ourselves to be either incompetent or deliberately ignorant. That is, what do you suppose is ‘acting from the motive of duty’ for Peirceans, such that we *must* apply any such prescribed method? For it is entirely possible we are applying it and it doesn’t work, or *we* are just very bad at it such that we need expert tutelage (*both* teacher and student / doctor *and* audience). As to the latter, thank goodness we have gatekeepers on this list, amirite? For I could learn something about *strong* treatment of woman by looking to our own conduct. With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:51 AM Auke van Breemen < [email protected]> wrote: > 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/ }{ 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]: > > 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 > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
