Jon - again, you seem to be missing the point. When you tell another researcher 
that their views are objectively different from the views of Peirce - which 
views are in texts and are thus meant to be interpreted [for no text other than 
a mathematical formula is outside of interpretation] , you are telling them 
that their interpretation of Peirce is invalid. This does indeed set you up as 
the Judge, the Authority, of what is a valid or invalid interpretation of 
Peirce's views. 

All you can reasonably do, in my opinion, as a fellow-researcher, is declare 
that YOU do indeed adamantly disagree with this person's interpretation, and 
that YOUR interpretation is different and is such and such. You can point out 
very specifically the texts that support your view; you can analyse these 
texts..and so on, you can give your opinion that the other interpretation is 
therefore weak and empty, but you cannot then declare that your view is The 
Correct One and that others have thereby 'objectively' shown to be wrong.  

But instead, what you repeatedly do, is unilaterally declare that the other 
person's outline is WRONG and that you are RIGHT. I don't think that this is a 
reasonable stance to take. That's why I have referred to the method of 
'tenacity' and 'authority'. As you point out, we can only  use the method of 
science - which is, as Peirce noted, a far more difficult method of arriving at 
the truth but is really, the only method. But, it involves time and 
debate...and since we are talking about theories and not objective 
existentialities - which theories are outlined to us in long texts, then, the 
debate is actually more complex and open. 

i hope therefore, as you point out, that we can be more open to each other's 
views.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 2:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


  Edwina, List:


  Before I say anything else--I do not want to start up another tiresome 
argument here; I am just taking this opportunity to attempt, one more time, to 
explain my perspective.



  While I am interested in your views, and Gary F.'s views, and other List 
participants' views--I am MOST interested in Peirce's views.  What has bothered 
me so much is that you do not seem to distinguish carefully between your views 
and Peirce's views, such that you evidently take great offense when I or anyone 
else points out that they are (objectively) different.  Unfortunately, that is 
when the name-calling often starts--accusing anyone who dares to say such a 
thing of claiming to be "the Master-Guru of Peirce," or "the Authoritative 
Voice of Peirce," or some other equally ridiculous title.


  With all due respect, this is not at all conducive to open and fruitful 
discussion--and that is why I have a hard time just "letting it go," as you are 
proposing.  Now, I have not always been as circumspect in composing my posts as 
I should be, either; and for that, I once again sincerely apologize, both to 
you and to the List community.  I hope that we can be more polite to each other 
going forward, so that we can perhaps even learn from each other using the 
method of science, rather than digging in against each other using the method 
of tenacity.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

    Gary F - on a further note, what puzzles me is why you and Jon get so upset 
by my analyses of Peirce. All you have to do is - several things. Declare that 
you disagree, and then, don't analyze further; just fully describe and express 
your views. If I write back with my disagreement, then, again, just declare 
that you disagree - and, fully describe YOUR views. Then, you wait for all the 
many approving comments and discussion on your views. You need not even refer 
to my 'disagreeable' views when you post. Or - you could simply delete my 
posts! 

    But- to insist that your view is the true analysis of Peirce - well, I 
think that's a 'bit much'. And if you consider that is 'name-calling', so be 
it. 

    Edwina


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -----------------------------
  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 .




-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to