Dear list: I came across this portion of *Measure for Measure* by Shakespeare through Peirce's *Man's Glassy Essence*.
I feel like this relates to the present discussion somehow but the exactness is lost on me. Not sure that a historicist reading is even possible. Any thoughts will be appreciated. Takes note of what is done; and, like a prophet, Looks in a glass, that shows what future evils… but man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he's most assured, His glassy essence, like an angry ape, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens, Would all themselves laugh mortal. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - you have missed my point. I said exactly the opposite of you when I > said that people must read Peirce for themselves and come to their own > conclusions. > > Instead, you have constantly, relentlessly, pointed out to me that I am > quite wrong in my own conclusions; that I have misread and misinterpreted > Peirce and that your readings are the accurate ones. That is, you have not > allowed me that right which you claim you do - to come to my own > conclusions. > > Actually, no, I must say that I haven't sharpened my thinking when > interacting with you; instead, I have been stunned by how you ignore > various points I raise, twist my words, nitpick semantics, inform me of my > failings-to-understand and of your correct views - such that it becomes an > exhausting dead-end. My deep failure is that I respond to you. And I'll > respond to your final comment because it is so really ..bizarre but is > indicative of the whole tone of our interaction. You wrote: > > Jon: I am always happy to give her the last word when I have nothing > further to add. > > Don't you see how patronizing, how sanctimonious and smug that statement > is? I know you don't - but, it's quite the 'put-down' to tell someone that > their further arguments, after yours, are essentially irrelevant. > > OK - I declare that I won't engage further with you. > > Edwina > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Saturday, November 05, 2016 9:57 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Mike, List: > > I can definitely understand how some would find these discussions > "tiresome," but almost simultaneously with your negative response, I > received a private reply to the very same message from a "lurker" stating, > "This is great, and offlist - just wanted you to know that I enjoyed this > post and enjoy your posts in general." As Peirce said, "Different people > have such wonderfully different ways of thinking ..." (CP 6.462). > > I do not understand why my appeals to the List community's good judgment > would bother you so much. They are really no different from when Edwina > has said (and I have agreed) that everyone must read Peirce for themselves > and come to their own conclusions. In any case, with all due respect, > please do not try to dictate how I participate in the List. > > Finally, as I have said before, I sincerely appreciate Edwina for > repeatedly forcing me to sharpen my thinking and argumentation, and I hope > that her experience has been similar. I am always happy to give her the > last word when I have nothing further to add. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > >> I suppose if everyone comments on these constant arguments as being >> "tiresome" maybe we are approaching a community consensus of what >> constitutes the sign for "tiresome" in a Peircean sense. I find it >> interesting that Peirce held the ethics of all of this as separate from the >> semiotic process. >> >> If you would, and this is directed specifically to Jon, please cease from >> my perspective this practice: >> On 11/4/2016 9:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> I frankly find it amusing that you think I am "upset and angry" about any >> of this. I am quite comfortable with my assessment here, and once again >> leave it to the good judgment of the List community to separate the wheat >> from the chaff. >> >> These are arguments that you and Edwina choose to pursue *ad infinitum*. >> Please cease in asking readers of this list to either be on your side or >> not. My "good judgment" is to wish not to hear fruitless arguments pursued >> to exhaustion, looking for the last word, and certainly not be asked to >> weigh in (even in my own mind) on which tiresome argument holds sway. >> >> 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 > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
