Jon, Edwina, list, I see nothing whatsoever Saussurean semiological, nominalistic, or literal-bound (whatever that might mean) in Jon's recent remarks and, rather, have seen him to *consistently* make at least the attempt here to analyze relevant concepts in the spirit of Peircean realism.
So I agree with Jon that if Edwina is unwilling or unable to substantiate her allegations, offering specific examples with commentary analyzing why she sees Jon's analysis as Saussurean and nominalistic, that there is no good reason for Jon or anyone to take those allegations seriously. Indeed, personally it strikes me as no more than a kind of 'intellectual name-calling' lacking that substantiation. Best. Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > That is fine--if you are unwilling to substantiate your allegation, then I > see no reason to take it seriously. It seems telling that you evidently > have no interest in helping me escape from what you perceive to be a > fundamental error on my part. Rather, it sounds like you have come up with > a convenient rationalization for simply dismissing anything that I might > have to say on the List going forward. > > Cheers, > > Jon > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon Schmidt: Yes, that's the interpretation I made of your >> comments [i.e., Saussurian nominalism]. And no, I won't get into any >> 'alternative interpretation' or debate with you as you, in my view, are >> firmly operative within that mould [Saussurian nominalism] and tend to >> remould Peirce into a strict one-meaning only structure. So - there's no >> point in debating with you - as the 'debate' reduces into you asserting >> your view and claiming that other views are 'non-Peircean'. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >> Cosmology) >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Are you suggesting, then, that my "analysis" of the quotes that I cited >> from "New Elements" is "literal-bound" in that sense? If so, then what >> alternative interpretation do you think would result from properly applying >> Peircean semeiotic realism instead? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon - I explained a 'literal-bound' analysis in my post, when I gave the >>> example of Saussurian semiological nominalism, where 'this word' stands for >>> 'that meaning'. >>> >>> As for the triad of semiosis, I've explained mediation many times before >>> and won't repeat that explanation. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> *Cc:* Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >>> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>> Cosmology) >>> >>> Edwina, List: >>> >>> Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean by "a >>> 'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce"? What exactly is "that evolving and >>> complex mediating 'law'" that you seem to believe is essential to proper >>> interpretation? As far as I can tell, Jerry did not point out any such >>> thing in his response, so maybe I am just missing something. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think one has to be careful, as others have pointed out, in moving >>>> into a 'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce. That, in my view, moves into >>>> Saussurian semiological nominalism where 'this word' has just 'that >>>> meaning'. Such a dyadic one-to-one referential framework i.e., >>>> where interpretation absents itself from that evolving and >>>> complex mediating 'law' [as Jerry points out] is the antithesis of >>>> Peircean semiosis. >>>> >>>> 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 .
