I agree with off-list comments to Gary that the post was inappropriate, and I believe Gary acted appropriately. In my view, the post aiming to chastise John was directly inflammatory and counter-productive to the purpose of the list.
-- Franklin On Jun 20, 2017 5:08 PM, "Jerry Rhee" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear list: > > > > I appreciate Gary and list-moderators' earnest willfulness to maintain > Ransdell’s original intention. It can be viewed as a thankless but > beautiful responsibility. > > > > With respect to kirsti’s comment: > > > > "This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't > know what you are talking about. - just walking on very thin ice and > expecting your fame on other fields with get you through." > > *These remarks were seen by one lister as "denigrating" and by another as > "untoward." I agreed and wrote Kirsti off-list.* > > > I agree that it is denigrating and untoward. However, the despising, the > disgust, reveals something of our nature and for that, I am thankful. For > if only taken as denigrating and untoward, then what purpose does it serve? > > > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gary, list, >> >> First: I did not feel offended, I felt surprised. The expertice and >> authority of John F. Sowa were so clear to me that I could not think of >> anyone,least John, to take any offence in my stating my view so bluntly. - >> Which I apologized. >> >> After the suprise I do feel offended. I was critisized for my tenor and >> tone. >> >> Is there anything more personal, more 'ad hominem', as that? >> >> I wish the person or persons not liking my responses would take it up on >> list, or post it to me. >> >> I do not understand how or why anything on P-list should be to anyone's >> likings. >> >> End of this dicussion in my part. >> >> Kirsti >> >> >> Gary Richmond kirjoitti 20.6.2017 23:30: >> >>> Kirsti, list, >>> >>> As list moderator and co-manager I try to follow what I consider to be >>> the exemplary notions expressed by the founder and first manager and >>> moderator of peirce-l, Joseph Ransdell, concerning what he considered >>> to be best practices on the list. I may not always be as successful as >>> Joe was in this, but I try to do the best I can. For Joe's remarks, >>> see: HOW THE FORUM WORKS (scroll down a bit): >>> >>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM [1] >>> >>> if you are new to the list or have not read them for some time, I >>> highly recommend (re)reading Joe's remarks, something I do myself from >>> time to time. >>> >>> In the current matter I would especially recommend reading these >>> passages (I've inserted a very few of my own comments into these). >>> >>> CAVEAT ABOUT CORRECTING OTHERS >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently pursued: >>> philosophy is understood here to be essentially a critically directed >>> and self-controlled conversation. But there is one important caveat in >>> this connection: If you feel that some messages being posted are not >>> to the purpose of the list or that there is something someone is doing >>> which should be discouraged, do NOT attempt to rectify that yourself >>> by posting a message to that effect to the list in general. Because >>> there is so little overt or formal moderation by the list manager, it >>> is natural to suppose that the individual members can and should take >>> that role as needed. But this rarely if ever produces the effect >>> intended, regardless of how reasonable it may seem at a particular >>> time. Contact me instead off-list and we will see what can or should >>> be done, if anything, without generating a chain reaction of protests >>> and counter-protests, which are the typical result of attempting to >>> rectify the problem on-list. >>> >>> GR: Following the practice Joe advised here, I was properly >>>> contacted by three members of the list who found especially this >>>> passage in a message from Kirsti addressed to John problematic: >>>> Kirsti had written: >>>> >>>> "This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't >>>> know what you are talking about. - just walking on very thin ice >>>> and expecting your fame on other fields with get you through." >>>> >>>> THESE REMARKS WERE SEEN BY ONE LISTER AS "DENIGRATING" AND BY >>>> ANOTHER AS "UNTOWARD." I AGREED AND WROTE KIRSTI OFF-LIST. >>>> >>> >>> WHY THE LIST MANAGER SHOULD DO THE CORRECTING >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Should you contact the person yourself first, off-list, in an attempt >>> to rectify their way of participating rather than bothering me with >>> it? Although you do of course have a right—professional, moral, >>> legal, whatever—to do this, and it may seem best to you, let me urge >>> you to contact me first, nonetheless, unless there is some truly >>> special and urgent reason to the contrary. There are several reasons >>> for this: >>> >>> (1) None of us really knows yet what the most humane and productive >>> communicational mores will turn out to be for communication of this >>> sort: it is continually surprising, and if anything is certain here it >>> is that our initial hunches tend to be unreliable. The list manager is >>> more likely to understand enough about the dynamics of this particular >>> list than anyone else, and has also had enough experience of these >>> things to have learned what is likely to be the most effective >>> response to something problematic. >>> >>> (2) It is the list manager who is ultimately responsible for the list, >>> as regards institutional accountability. Speaking directly to this: I >>> need to have these things under my own control if I am to handle >>> judiciously the problems that can arise in such connections. I am open >>> to advice and counsel at all times and try not to act imperiously. But >>> there is no way that I can effectively delegate my responsibility to >>> the list members, which would be essential if the members were >>> themselves to participate in the management of the list other than as >>> informal advisors in off-list discussion. >>> >>> (3) It is probably because everybody on the list understands (at least >>> unreflectively) that no list members as such have any special right to >>> regulate or moderate the conduct of others as list members that >>> criticisms of one another that suggest directly or indirectly that >>> someone is not of the proper sort to be on the list because of what >>> they post are highly inflammatory and are the cause of most so-called >>> "flame wars". >>> >>> Contrary to what one might think, "flame wars" do NOT begin because >>> people, excited by ideas, sometimes go too far and say things they >>> shouldn't. Errors like this are to be expected in a new discussion >>> medium and they are easily corrected by apology and retraction >>> immediately thereafter. Anybody who participates vigorously in this >>> medium will make errors of judgment like this, and those familiar with >>> the medium do not condemn one another for it. They do expect, though, >>> that those who are at odds with one another in this way be both >>> generous in their tolerance of the other when excess occurs and in >>> their readiness to make verbal amends when excess is imputed to them. >>> _When in doubt, apologize: you are never diminished by it._ >>> >>> GR: AGAIN, I WROTE KIRSTI OF THE OFF-LIST CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY >>>> SEVERAL FORUM MEMBERS INCLUDING MY OWN CONCERNS. HER RESPONSE >>>> ON-LIST SUGGESTS TO ME THAT SHE WAS CLEARLY OFFENDED BY THAT >>>> MESSAGE. STILL, I THOUGHT THE WAY I APPROACHED IT WAS THE CORRECT >>>> WAY TO DO SO. AND HER APOLOGY (REFLECTING WHAT IS EMPHASIZED IN >>>> JOE'S COMMENTS JUST ABOVE) IS CERTAINLY APPRECIATED, AT VERY LEAST >>>> BY ME. >>>> >>> >>> THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IN THE PROTECTION OF REPUTATION >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> Special situations do arise, though, in which someone feels aggrieved >>> at what someone else has said to or about them in the public forum and >>> feels it important to set the record straight in the forum as well, >>> not necessarily out of anger but as a matter of the practical need to >>> exercise self-defense of reputation as regards personal or >>> professional comportment. I will address this more fully and >>> adequately in an appendix below, but it should be understood that not >>> even the list manager has the right to deny to a person the >>> opportunity of rectifying, by speaking in his or her own behalf, what >>> he or she believes to be serious misunderstandings about themselves as >>> persons, private or public, that have been or are being generated in >>> the forum. _This right of personal self-defense must be respected, >>> even when the person seems to be mistaken or to be using poor judgment >>> in pursuing it._ See the appendix in further explanation of the reason >>> for this and for some procedural points and policies that are >>> especially important in this connection. >>> >>> GR: SO, KIRSTI INDEED HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF SINCE SHE >>>> CLEARLY FEELS MALIGNED BY ME (BTW, NOTE THAT WHILE I CC'D BEN UDELL, >>>> LIST CO-MANAGER, MY NOTE TO KIRSTI, HE DID NOT HIMSELF PARTICIPATE >>>> IN THE WRITING OF IT). >>>> >>> >>> THE PUBLIC AND THE PERSONAL >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> If you are new to this discussion medium you may make the common >>> mistake of thinking that a public forum should be impersonal. Not so. >>> In fact, all relationships of persons established here in virtue of >>> becoming a subscriber to the list are necessarily person-to-person >>> relationships. PEIRCE-L is not a community or a group, though it will >>> hopefully function to encourage community relationships. It is simply >>> a place where persons talk to persons in a public setting, and it is >>> normal to address one another personally while speaking in a public >>> place. The personal is not the same as the private. The question is >>> whether the discussion concerns matters that pertain to the purpose of >>> the forum in general, and when that condition is met it is quite in >>> order to pursue special interests in public in list-based discussions >>> of this sort as long as there is nothing exclusive of others in it, >>> either explicitly or in tone. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator and co-manager) >>> >>> GARY RICHMOND >>> PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING >>> COMMUNICATION STUDIES >>> LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK >>> C 745 >>> 718 482-5690 [2] >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear John, >>>> >>>> I sincerely apologize for any negative feelings my latest mail >>>> addressed to you may have caused. >>>> >>>> I have been reprimanded by list managers that my tenor and tone are >>>> not tolerated. In a democratic list, so I am told. >>>> >>>> There have been three complaints. Off-list. So I'm told. >>>> >>>> My rare praises have been out-of-place and unfounded too. So I have >>>> been told as well. >>>> >>>> Hereby I publicly apologize for both kinds of responses. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kirsti >>>> >>>> [email protected] kirjoitti 10.11.2016 15:51: >>>> John, list, >>>> >>>> Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between >>>> stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many >>>> just >>>> as possible stories. >>>> >>>> Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are >>>> storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot the >>>> time-scale >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> Best, Kirsti >>>> >>>> John F Sowa kirjoitti 9.11.2016 21:25: >>>> Edwina, Kirsti, list, >>>> >>>> ET >>>> I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. >>>> >>>> I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the >>>> issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from >>>> p. 2 >>>> of a book on biosemiotics (see below). Following is the critical >>>> point: >>>> >>>> GB >>>> thinking in terms of stories must be shared by all mind or minds >>>> whether ours or those of redwood forests and sea anemones... >>>> A story is a little knot or complex of that species of >>>> connectedness which we call relevance. >>>> >>>> This observation is compatible with Peirce, but CSP used the term >>>> 'quasi-mind' to accommodate the species-bias of most humans: >>>> >>>> CP 4.551 >>>> Admitting that connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, it may >>>> further >>>> be declared that there can be no isolated sign. Moreover, signs >>>> require at least two Quasi-minds; a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi- >>>> interpreter; and although these two are at one (i.e., are one mind) >>>> in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct. In the >>>> Sign >>>> they are, so to say, welded. Accordingly, it is not merely a fact >>>> of human Psychology, but a necessity of Logic, that every logical >>>> evolution of thought should be dialogic. >>>> >>>> Re time: We have to distinguish (1) time as it is in reality >>>> (whatever that may be); (2) time in our stories (which include the >>>> formalized stories called physics); (3) the mental sequence of >>>> thought; and (4) the logical sequence (dialogic) of connected >>>> signs. >>>> >>>> ET >>>> The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the >>>> so-called >>>> Big Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S [not John S] >>>> read them as BEFORE. In my reading, before the Big Bang, there was >>>> Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. >>>> >>>> This question is about time sequences in different kinds of >>>> stories: >>>> the Big Bang story about what reality may be; and Platonic stories >>>> about ideal, mathematical forms. >>>> >>>> The time sequence of a mathematical story is independent of the >>>> time >>>> sequence of a physical story. We may apply the math (for example, >>>> the definitions, axioms, and proofs of a Platonic form) to the >>>> construction of a physical story. >>>> >>>> But that application is a mapping between two stories. The term >>>> 'prior to' is meaningful only *within* a story, not between >>>> stories. >>>> >>>> In short, our "commonsense" notion of time is an abstraction from >>>> the stories we tell about our experience. The time sequences in >>>> two >>>> different stories may have some similarities, but we must >>>> distinguish >>>> three distinct sequences: the time sequences of each story, and >>>> the >>>> time sequence of the mapping, which is a kind of meta-story. >>>> >>>> JFS >>>> Does anyone know if [Peirce] had written anything about embedding >>>> our universe in a hypothetical space of higher dimension? >>>> >>> >>> KM >>> >>> I am most interested in knowing more on this. >>>> >>> >>> David Finkelstein, p. 277 of the reference below: >>> >>> Peirce seems to have included geometry in his evolutionism, at least >>>> in principle... [He] seems not to have responded to the >>>> continuously- >>>> evolving physical geometry of Riemann and Clifford... nor to >>>> Einstein's >>>> conceptual unification of space and time. >>>> >>> >>> In any case, I think that the notion of time as an abstraction from >>> stories -- imaginary, factual, or theoretical -- provides a way of >>> relating different views. It also allows for metalevel reasoning >>> that can distinguish and relate different kinds of stories that >>> have independent time scales and sequences. >>> >>> John >>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> From Google books: >>> >>> _A Legacy for Living Systems: Gregory Bateson as Precursor >>> to Biosemiotics_ edited by Jesper Hoffmeyer, Springer, 2008: >>> >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&lpg= >>> PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+arrangement& >>> source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YAG597uwjyedB4dSf2BuC0& >>> hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyZD88JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA#v= >>> onepage&q=Order%20is%20simply%20thought%20embodied%20in% >>> 20arrangement&f=false >>> [3] >>> >>> David R. Finkelstein, _Quantum Relativity: A Synthesis of the Ideas >>> of Heisenberg and Einstein_, Springer, 1996. >>> >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg= >>> PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl&ots=0rc7kjxqIJ&sig=Hsgt >>> u9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZzQAhWF >>> 3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false >>> [4] >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 [5] . >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM >>> [2] tel:(718)%20482-5690 >>> [3] >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&; >>> amp;lpg=PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+arr >>> angement&source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YAG59 >>> 7uwjyedB4dSf2BuC0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyZD8 >>> 8JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Order%20is%20s >>> imply%20thought%20embodied%20in%20arrangement&f=false >>> [4] >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&; >>> amp;lpg=PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl&ots >>> =0rc7kjxqIJ&sig=Hsgtu9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl=en& >>> amp;sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZzQAhWF3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzAA# >>> v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false >>> [5] 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
