Jon, list - First - I am not dictating to this forum. I am asking YOU, I repeat, YOU, to stop asserting that YOUR interpretation of Peirce is the only valid one.
1) I disagree with your assertion - which is JUST an interpretation - that Firstness and Thirdness are 'real' apart from their embodiment in triadic Signs. That is the way YOU read Peirce. I read his work very differently. This is not MY personal analytic framework. It is my interpretation of Peircean categories which are, as he says, the 'universal categories of elements of experience' 1.417. Again - of elements of experience. These 'categories of elements of phenomena' [1.418-420] are not, in my reading, essentialist forces in themselves isolate from being elements of experience but are natural modes of organization of matter [which is always triadic]. 2) Reality refers to universal, to generals. The three categories refer to organization of elements of experience into triadic Signs. Indeed, Firstness is a mode of organization of a universal, of a general, into a possibility. This universal could be organized into an existence [via Secondness] or a habit [via Thirdness] - but, Firstness per se isn't real. Nor is Thirdness. These are modes of organization of elements of experience. However, the universal, eg, of 'redness' or 'hardness' [as a universal] is real. Now, your interpretation of these same passages is very different from mine. I see no evidence that Peirce considers two of the categorical modes as 'real' and one as 'existential'. There is no evidence that a category is dependent, in its being, upon the fact that some material thing possesses it' 1.422; my emphasis. Your view of Secondness seems to contradict this. 3) But - "Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else'. 8.329. Now - my reading of that above is that Firstness is a mode of being of that which is such as it is'. This suggests to me - that it is a mode of organization of that 'mode of being'. And "Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third". 8.329. Same thing - a mode of being of that which is such as it is And "Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other". Again - same thing" a mode of being of that which is such as it is. Therefore - my interpretation is that the three categories refer to the organization or 'modes of being of 'that which is such as it is'. They do not function without such actions. 4) I do see evidence where he considers that universals/generals are real, and that the categorical modes organize these universals into various triadic Signs in different modes: quality, reaction, necessity. As he points out - everything is 'Signs' and "Signs are divisible by three trichotomies; first, according as the sign in itself is a mere quality, is an actual existent, or is a general law.....2.243. I point this out to suggest that the categories are not, in themselves, universals - which is what a Reality is - but are modes of organization of elements of experience, ie, Signs. Again, Jon, and you seem adamantly opposed to this - but your views are YOUR interpretations - and it is not up to you to also claim that they are The Only Correct Analysis of Peirce. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Edwina, List: I reject your attempt to dictate the ground rules of this forum. A truly scientific approach to philosophy involves every member of the community having the ability to exercise the freedom to challenge each other, although obviously this should always be done politely, respectfully, and as charitably as possible. Not every proposed "interpretation" of Peirce is equally valid; in particular, an "interpretation" that flatly contradicts significant portions of his writings deserves close scrutiny. For example, Peirce's analytic framework unambiguously affirmed the Reality of qualities (Firstness) and laws (Thirdness) apart from their instantiation in Actual facts (Secondness), but your analytic framework denies this. Therefore, your analytic framework is not identical with that of Peirce. I have absolutely every right to assert this, provided that I am able to substantiate it from Peirce's own words, which I have already done in this case by (among other things) quoting CP 1.418-420 at length. Your position on this is not a different "interpretation" of Peirce, it is a disagreement with him, and I honestly do not understand why you so adamantly refuse to admit this. I would love to "get back to Peirce now"; in particular, his "theory of thinking" and its connection with his "Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," which is (after all) the thread topic. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: 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 .
