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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 [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 .
