Edwina, List: Again, I agree completely. For the record, here is how I concluded my off-List message to John, which he opted not to include in his post.
As Peirce himself put it, "Different people have such wonderfully different ways of thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437; 1908). In my case, I do my best thinking by reading, writing, and then responding to feedback--typically learning the most when someone takes the time to express and defend disagreement with me, forcing me to rethink by rereading and rewriting. That being the case, I sincerely appreciate our recent exchanges, although I continue to wish that they would not become so contentious, recognizing that I share the blame when that happens. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:25 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, JAS, but I also meant that one doesn't, even in a private off-list > exchange, send to each other what someone else has written about you - as > a tactic to support one's argument!. So- neither you nor John should have > sent each other the private comments that others made to each of you - > again as a tactic to support your argument. Since, presumably, these were > not arguments about the topic, but personal comments about the posters, you > and John. > > The arguments have to stand on their own. > > But there is a different issue - which is what I'm talking about - and it > is: - can our analytic capacities be smothered by our own biases or > perspectives? I can understand why we send and even should send, other's > views about each other - when, for example, the personality of the poster > [JAS and John in this case] seems to override the content of the argument. > That happens quite often, when a poster has a philosophical or other > agenda, which takes over and even controls the analysis and argument. How > do you inform a poster that his private perhaps unconscious agenda is > smothering a clear analysis of the topic? Sometimes you can only persuade > the poster of this fact by informing him that others can see this problem. > So- it's not a tactic to support the argument, but a method of showing the > other poster that he has a serious 'blind spot' which he can't acknowledge. > > Edwina > > On Fri 22/03/19 9:39 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > List: > > I agree completely with Edwina. What John Sowa failed to mention is that > he initiated our off-List exchange by relaying similar comments about me > that others had sent to him. I will not provide them here, because I > believe that it is highly inappropriate to post someone else's off-List > statements without permission--even anonymously--which is what John has now > done. As I have said repeatedly, I am content to make my case to the best > of my ability, and let those reading along decide for themselves who has > the more persuasive argument. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and >> conclusions of an argument. >> >> Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in >> themselves, include any argument. If they did include data and analysis - >> then, they would be posted to the list. >> >> So, I don't think that JAS can consider off-line comments as >> 'argumentatively' supportive - so, there's no need to send them to anyone >> else. After all - just because someone agrees with me [and my argument] >> doesn't mean that I or they, are right in this opinion. We can see that >> problem in the, at one time, strong popular support for >> witches-causing-illness. >> >> I think an argument has to stand on its own merits. >> >> 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 .
