Edwina, List: At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Again, I gladly submit everything that I have said to the judgment of the List participants.
Regards, Jon On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon - please don't be patronizing. Please don't act 'all superior to' me > and tell me kindly how pleased you are that I am using Peirce's framework > 'far beyond what he wrote'. > > I do not agree that my outlines and use of Peircean semiosis are > 'different from Peirce's'. I do not accept YOUR opinion that this is an > 'objective fact' - for after all, such a conclusion rests with YOU - and > not with any objective reality. I don't agree with many of YOUR > interpretations of Peirce - i.e., the categories, the sign, objective > idealism, etc - but I don't declare that your views are 'different from > Peirce's' nor do I patronize you about your so doing. I don't set myself > up, as you do, tenaciously, as the Authoritative Voice of Peirce. > > Peirce was obviously openly analyzing the semiosic actions of the > physico-chemical and biological realms - as do I, and my work is based on > his analysis - and substantiated, always, with direct references to his > work. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 15, 2016 3:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Edwina, List: > > One last time (I hope)--I am not asserting that my interpretation of > Peirce is the only valid one, or that my analysis of Peirce is the only > correct one. I am merely pointing out that your analytic framework is (in > certain respects) different from Peirce's, which is an objective fact, not > a subjective opinion. Why not embrace it? You deserve credit for all the > hard work that you have done to develop some of Peirce's ideas far beyond > what he himself wrote, and to apply them in fields that he did not have the > opportunity to explore during his own lifetime. > > So, what do folks have to say about Peirce's theory of thinking? > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> *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 <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> *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 <[email protected]> >>>>> *To:* Mike Bergman <[email protected]> >>>>> *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 .
