Jon, List - No, you continue to misunderstand. You declare that my analytic framework is 'not identical' to that of Peirce. You have absolutely no right to say that, since, as I have said to you before, you are not the Master-Guru of Peirce. All you can say, with any validity, is that YOUR interpretation of Peirce is different from MY interpretation of Peirce. You cannot, with any validity, assert anything more. You cannot claim that yours is more accurate; that mine is less accurate. All you can do, is outline your analysis -
And - as others have noted, this interaction is getting exceedingly tiresome. I repeat - we are BOTH involved in the interpretation and analysis of Peirce. You have no right to claim that my interpretation/analysis of Peirce is wrong or 'not identical with that of Peirce'. All you can do - is explain YOUR interpretation and your analysis. That's it. You can, of course, point out that your outline is very different from mine - and yes, that you prefer your own analysis!!!. But you have no right to assert that your outline is 'identical with that of Peirce' - and mine is not. And could we get back to Peirce now? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Edwina, List: I did not inquire about or ask you to tell me anything in my last message, and will not inquire about or ask you to tell me anything in this one. I am not interested in your personal beliefs, either. I just want to distinguish your analytic framework from Peirce's, since they are not identical ("iconic clones," as you put it). Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: 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 .
