Dear list:
Stephen: I see you. I recognize you. I hear your complaint. Jon: You said: As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring specifically to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her word or mine for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own conclusions about whether her posts reflect a valid interpretation of his writings or an objectively different analytic framework from his. I gather from this remark that you are still more interested in being proved correct than whether the argument is to be decided for its own sake. You said: At this point, Edwina and I are evidently both quite satisfied with our respective positions, and thus would require something more than paper doubt in order to reconsider them seriously. So, you have no more to add to your arguments and therefore, are prepared to walk away because all you see is more disputation. I get it. Why keep talking when all that’s happening is talking. You said: If you see a way forward that would resolve the impasse, *I suggest that you spell it out for us*. I would ask you to look at your above comment next to: *So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are* *the Christ, tell us plainly.”* *Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe… I and the Father are one.” **The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.* *Jesus answered them, **“I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” …* *…If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;* *but if I do them,* *even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that* *the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” * *Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.* ~John 10:24-38 MENO: *When you have told me what I ask, I will tell you*, Socrates. SOCRATES: A man who was blindfolded has only to hear you talking, and he would know that you are a fair creature and have still many lovers. MENO: Why do you think so? SOCRATES: Why, because you always speak in imperatives: like all beauties when they are in their prime, you are tyrannical... MENO: That, Socrates, appears to me to be an admirable answer. SOCRATES: Why, yes, because it *happens to be one which you have been in the habit of hearing*: and your wit will have discovered, I suspect, that you may explain in the same way the nature of sound and smell, and of many other similar phenomena. _______ That is, how many times and in how many different ways must I ask you to look to CP 5.189? More importantly, you must first decide if that is the normative form. If it is the normative form, then cede authority to it. Look to it for answers rather than stating your position repeatedly, for it is clear from your ongoing disputations that there is something to his philosophy that is missing from your perspective. Either that or we are all fools. Hth, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring specifically > to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her word or mine > for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own > conclusions about whether her posts reflect a valid interpretation of his > writings or an objectively different analytic framework from his. At this > point, Edwina and I are evidently both quite satisfied with our respective > positions, and thus would require something more than paper doubt in order > to reconsider them seriously. If you see a way forward that would resolve > the impasse, I suggest that you spell it out for us. > > 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 4:26 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
