Jon, list - you still don't seem to understand. My personal beliefs are 
completely irrelevant to my interpretation and analysis of Peirce. That is, my 
interpretations and analysis can be a completely accurate outline of Peircean 
thought - even if my own beliefs are different. [I am not saying that they are; 
I am only outlining an IF-THEN framework]. Therefore, there is no need for you 
to inquire about my personal beliefs - and no need for you to 'discuss other 
points where my beliefs are different from those of Peirce'. Who cares? What 
difference does it make?

Just as I am not interested in your personal beliefs - for they should have no 
relevance to your ability to analyze and interpret Peirce - I would appreciate 
that you stop asking me to tell you where my beliefs agree with/do not agree 
with - those of Peirce.

The focus should be on the interpretation and analysis of Peirce. And the use 
of his analytic framework in other areas - such as science. Not on whether or 
not we are, personally,  iconic clones of his work.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 10:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


  Edwina, List:


  I am not sure exactly what you mean by "inquisitory," but I apologize for 
evidently causing you discomfort.   I did not intend to pry into your personal 
beliefs, which are indeed none of my business.  I honestly thought that my 
question was innocuous--that since you already characterized yourself as an 
atheist, you would readily acknowledge that you disagree with Peirce about the 
Reality of God.  I hoped that this would then open the door to discussing other 
points where you disagree with Peirce, rather than merely having a different 
interpretation from mine.  My focus is on understanding and discussing what 
Peirce actually wrote.


  Regards,


  Jon


  On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:

    Mike, Jon, list: I agree with Mike. The tone and indeed question of Jon's 
is, in my view, inquisitory and out-of-line. This is a blog devoted to 
Peirce-L...and not Edwina-L.  Therefore my personal beliefs are totally 
irrelevant and frankly, none of Jon's business. 

    Since I am also claiming that Jon surely cannot be making the cognitive 
error of asserting that If and Only If someone has the SAME  beliefs as another 
person, can that person make a valid interpretation and analyses of this other 
person's beliefs.....then, I have no idea why he is so insistent on finding out 
my personal beliefs.

    After all, it can't be the case that you can only understand and analyze 
Peirce if you are an iconic clone of him!

    So- I have no intention of introducing my beliefs to this blog. My focus is 
on interpreting and analyzing Peirce.

    Edwina


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
      To: Mike Bergman 
      Cc: [email protected] 
      Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:46 PM
      Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


      Mike, List: 


      Tone is often difficult to convey or perceive accurately in e-mail 
messages.  How is asking a sincere question prompted by a genuine desire to 
clarify someone else's views "not appropriate here"?  I always welcome feedback 
from the moderators, and am confident that one of them will inform me if I am 
out of line.  Besides, the thread topic is connected directly with "A Neglected 
Argument for the Reality of God," so this particular question is quite relevant.


      Regards,


      Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
      Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
      www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


      On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote:

        Hi Jon,

        I think this is inquisitory in tone, and not appropriate here. Also, 
both of you: I appreciate your differences, but this is getting tiresome.

        Thanks, Mike



------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -----------------------------
  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 
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




-----------------------------
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to