BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - I don't want to get into a fuss about this but I think you are
missing my point - which is that off-list comments frequently are not
about the topic but about the poster. About the biases and personal
agendas which might intrude on and even control the argumentation of
that poster. That cannot easily be addressed by 'reading, writing'
about the argument - because it's not the argument that is
obstructing discussion!!!- it's the poster's personal
agenda/personality [which might be unconscious].
Your conclusion to John didn't acknowledge this - and, after all,
since the problem might be unconscious, that's hardly unusual that
one doesn't acknowledge it! Sometimes it can only be done if enough
people say to the poster: Hey- aren't you aware of it? Your hair is
on fire! - So- stop talking about logical patterns and do something!'
Edwina
On Fri 22/03/19 10:37 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
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 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]
[2] 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
