Edwina and Jon,
ET
JFS: I'd like to see any such outline, diagram, text, or harmonization
posted online. It should be possible to cite the URL rather than some
email note from months or even years ago.
EDWINA: I'm not sure what you, John, mean by the above.
I have a website where I post c
John, List:
JFS: I keep copies of most of the messages I send, but delete most of the
ones I receive. So I can't list all the occurrences.
As I have pointed out before, the List archives (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l) are always available online to
anyone.
JFS: But following ar
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John, list
1] ET
> There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in
Peirce.
JOHN: I sympathize with ET on this point. But I'd like to see any
such
outline, diagram, text, or harmonization posted online. It
Jon and Edwina,
JAS
JFS: My *only* complaint is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim
that your theory is a harmonization of what Peirce intended ... If
you called your theory Peircean, I would have no quarrel. But if
you call it Peirce's or claim that it is what Peirce intended, I
can't let
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in
Peirce.
That includes the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI and the three
categorical modes and their 'genuine/degenerate mode
John, List:
JFS: My *only* complaint is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim that
your theory is a harmonization of what Peirce intended ... If you called
your theory Peircean, I would have no quarrel. But if you call it Peirce's
or claim that it is what Peirce intended, I can't let it stand
Edwina,
Yes, but my point was that JFS's opinion that "Opinions are never
acceptable in a court of law or in a scholarly edition.",
is an opinion that is incorrect, given that expert opinions are
admissible in a court of law.
Gene
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 8:47 AM Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
> Ge
Jon and Gene,
Jon
We have made our respective cases for our positions
I have no quarrel with your positions. My *only* complaint
is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim that your theory is
a harmonization of what Peirce intended.
Peirce himself could not harmonize his own work, and it's
Gene - an opinion ‘per se’ is ambiguous and therefore irrelevant. An
opinion-by-an-expert-in-the-field is similar to a conclusion that is based on
evidence and analysis. Very different from an ‘opinion’.
Edwina
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 17, 2019, at 10:23 PM, Eugene Halton wrote:
>
> JFS: "
