Edwina, List: One more time--I agree completely. However, what you describe is not what happened in this case. John received off-List comments supporting him against me, and I received off-List comments supporting me against him. He shared some of the comments that he received with me off-List, so I reciprocated. He then (wrongly, in my view) posted what I sent him and omitted what he had sent me, thus implying that I was the one who had initiated our off-List exchange.
None of us are mind-readers, so discerning someone else's *unconscious *biases or personal agendas is always fraught with speculation. Nevertheless, if anyone suspects that such influences might be governing my on-List argumentation, then I hope that they would *contact me* off-List, rather than someone else (including John). Alternatively, an on-List post would enable all readers to make up their own minds whether such concerns have any merit. On the other hand, I have pointed out repeatedly that John and I clearly have different *purposes *in studying and discussing Peirce's writings--and that sometimes results in *consciously *approaching them with different agendas. I wish that he would join me in acknowledging that, rather than repeatedly assuming that anyone who disagrees with him must not *really *understand the issues, and thus needs his help to see the light. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:04 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[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 .
