Dear list: Jon, you said, "At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own conclusions."
This is NOT what is meant by Peircean intention. You have no farther than to look into his disagreement with James to know this. In fact, this is of such a problematic nature, it is a reason for re-naming his philosophy. “*People say: between two opposed opinions the truth lies in the middle. Not at all! Between them lies the problem, what is unseeable, eternally active life, contemplated [gedacht] in repose.”* ~Goethe (MR, no. 616) At this point, I'd like to remind you again of *Fixation of Belief *and to recommend that you apply his scientific method. But it would require that we even know what it is. Clearly, either Peirce was not able to make his idea clear enough for us to implement his intention or we can't see it because of the obstructive nature of our own experiences. Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, List: > > Just so you know, I do read your posts and appreciate your (and others') > participation; but my usual practice is only to reply when I have something > to say. In other words, my lack of comments reflects a sense that I have > nothing worthwhile to add, rather than that a judgment that what you wrote > did not merit a response. I have heard others likewise mention people who > used to contribute frequently, but do so no longer, and wonder why that is > the case. Surely their absence is our loss. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks Edwina. >> >> I was referring to a few voices that meant a lot to me a few years back. >> But I do think, having moderated things early on, before and then on the >> nascent Web, that it is a labor of considerable love to maintain a forum >> continuously. Things ebb and flow. Obviously contention among a few will >> more than likely alienate or at least slow down the initiative of others. I >> personally hope things continue here. I value what seems to me the meat >> within many posts here and I ignore the rest. These include your posts >> which I find quite helpful and illuminating. We may not agree politically >> but that is neither here nor there. I would not have agreed with Peirce >> from all I gather. But I do believe I have a grasp of what Peirce was going >> for theologically and hope as you do for some enlightenment on science as >> well as for for some on what might be called Peirce's hermeneutic. I also >> would welcome thinking on the importance he placed on memorial maxims, >> aphorisms and other modes of short form communication. Best, S >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen - please don't take it personally if I don't acknowledge your >>> posts - I don't get involved in quite a few of the debates on this list - >>> eg, the recent long debate on the three modes of thought [abduction, >>> deduction, induction] - as my area of interest is in the triadic Sign and >>> the three categories. I know that others here are involved in the graphs, >>> and logical formats - and I'm not involved in those areas. >>> >>> But your point about the loss or 'hiding' of the heavy Peirce experts >>> here - that's important. Where are they? Giving up on the list? At the >>> moment, we have instead Jon and myself behaving rather as 8 year old school >>> children, shouting at each other "You don't know anything'// Yes I do: No >>> you don't//Yes I do"....and it does indeed belong in the schoolyard, for we >>> won't get anywhere with it. >>> >>> And I'd like to see more discussion of the scientific focus of Peirce's >>> work. He did, after all, explore his semiosis within the physico-chemical >>> and biological realms and I think it's a rich area. I'm not familiar with >>> the many philosophers mentioned so often on this list and so, tend to >>> ignore or delete much of the debates that bring in their views. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:16 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking >>> >>> You guys make my life easy by never acknowledging my posts period. I >>> suppose I should complain but I merely assume that the posts are seen as >>> lightweight and out of school. That was not so when there were some heavy >>> Peirce experts here who are no longer here apparently. >>> >>> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU >>> >>> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
