John, list,
I thoroughly disagree with your critique of Jon's approach to inquiry, so
thoroughly that I have nothing more to add except that I disagree with you
in your continuous critique of his approach, not only generally but also,
in the main, in almost all particulars; and not only in this recent
exchange, but also in several posts over the last few months.
Let me simply summarize my thinking on this matter by saying that, for me,
the proof is in the pudding. I almost always learn something of value in
Jon's posts even when I disagree with him. While I used to be able to say
the same of your posts, of late I learn virtually nothing in your critique
of Jon's argumentation and methodeutic. While I may most certainly be wrong
in this, your recent responses to his posts seem to me to suggest more an
animus towards him as scholar than anything substantive, especially since I
find most all of your critique baseless and misleading.
As I noted last month in a list moderator's note on "tolerance of others," "
GR: "The lack of tolerance that I as list moderator have recently seen here
is simply not acceptable in this forum. In my view, such a lack of
tolerance reflects badly on the character of the intolerant person and not
at all on the person harshly treated.'
Stephen Rose, who graciously apologized on list for his part in the
blocking ("Enough!") of inquiry here, first thought that that remark was
directed principally towards him--it was not (something which I clarified
to him off list).
On the other hand, when you continued your untoward (even insulting)
remarks toward Jon, I made it clear in a subsequent post addressed to you
that I considered your on list behavior unacceptable. I still do. Indeed, I
find it intellectually not befitting of any scholar, let alone one of your
stature.
In addition, while I was in Italy you apparently decided that the
discussion of the metaphysical/theological discussions in the Trinity
thread should cease (more, "enough" without that word being actually
written). But no one has the right to make that decision--*not even the
list moderator*--as long as there is an attempt to keep the discussion
Peirce-related to some extent.
I would appreciate it if you would read Joseph Ransdell's "How the Forum
Works."
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:56 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gary R,
>
> Before saying anything about Jon's comments, I want to emphasize
> something I mentioned in a previous note. It's also a point that
> other people have observed about published books and articles.
>
> In any commentary, the quotations by Peirce are nearly always
> clearer and more precise than the commentary by anybody who
> attempts to "clarify" what Peirce wrote.
>
> By that observation, I do *not* mean that it's useless to write
> anything about Peirce -- because I have learned a great deal
> by reading books and articles written about Peirce and his work.
> But the best writing can help in several ways:
>
> 1. Bring together passages from widely separated texts and MSS
> to show how they are related or how one adds aspects or features
> that are missing from the other.
>
> 2. Show how Pierce interpreted writings by other authors (from
> antiquity to the early 20th c.) and how he related their ideas
> to his point of view.
>
> 3. Show how Peirce's writings can clarify, enhance, or correct
> writings by more recent authors from the 20th and 21st c.
>
> 4. Add new examples that show how Peirce's writings can be
> applied to topics that he had not written about in his day.
>
> Peirce was a problem solver. He developed his logic and semeiotic
> to solve problems in science, engineering, philosophy, and psychology.
> The best way to understand what he wrote is to apply his ideas to the
> problems we are facing today. That is what Peirce would be doing if
> he were with us now, and that's how he hoped future generations would
> use and develop his ideas.
>
> GR
> > [Jon's] post of June 7th is such a clear, complete (as an outline), yet
> > extraordinarily succinct articulation of the semeiotic preconditions for
> > the formation of "a 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by an
> > intelligence capable of learning by experience" that I'm surprised it
> > hasn't been commented on here since its posting.
>
> That quotation by Peirce is clear and complete by itself: A dog is
> capable of learning from experience. Therefore, a dog has scientific
> intelligence. Biologists have discovered that a paramecium (with no
> neurons of any kind) is capable of learning from experience. Therefore,
> a paramecium has scientific intelligence.
>
> Peirce related the origin of life to the first non-degenerate Thirdness.
> During the past century, biologists and neuroscientists have discovered
> an enormous amount of information about neurons, DNA, and the organelles
> inside a single cell.
>
> That's an extremely important area for applying Peirce's theories.
> But a rehash of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, by itself, tells us nothing.
>
> For example, the following note by Peirce is very clear:
>
> > CSP: Namely, although the sheet that is actually employed may be
> > quite small, we make believe that the so-called sheet of assertion
> > is only a particular region, or area, of an immense surface ...
> > Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power to scribe
> > any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. ...
>
> In short, Peirce says that the SA is potentially infinite. There
> is no limit to the number of graphs that may be inscribed on it.
> But the mention of Graphist implies that Peirce is talking about
> a dialog with Grapheus in the process of endoporeutic.
>
> But the two occurrences of "..." indicate some deletions. I don't
> know why Jon deleted them, but the dialog with Grapheus is important.
> Peirce used that dialog to illustrate the way people solve problems
> by a mental dialog with themselves.
>
> > CSP continues: We further conceive that this feigned sensible state
> > of things is the icon or emblem of a mental state of things. Namely,
> > the immense surface with the graphs scribed upon it is the image of
> > the interpreter’s experience, while the sheet of assertion, his field
> > of view is the image of his field of attention. His experience is
> > forced upon him, while he attends to what he pleases, if he puts
> > forth sufficient effort. (R 280:82-83[29-30]; c. 1904-1905)
>
> This says that the surface with its graphs is an icon of the person's
> mental experience. It corresponds to what psychologists today call
> a "mental model". That is where Peirce made important contributions
> that psychologists are beginning to notice. That's where the action is.
>
> > JAS: My Experience is forced upon me as a continuous stream of
> > Perceptual Judgments, often subconsciously, like EGs that the
> > Graphist perpetually scribes anywhere on the immense surface...
>
> This sentence and its continuation is a distraction. it seems to imply
> that learning involves adding EGs to the SA. That is rote learning,
> which computers do far more efficiently than people. The mental dialog
> between Graphist and Grapheus is a deeper kind of learning that adapts
> and assimilates the new information to the old information. That is
> a major insight that should be emphasized.
>
> I also found the other two quotations by Peirce to be clearer than
> Jon's additions. The categories of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns are certainly
> important. But if Peirce felt that they would have clarified his
> meaning in those passages, he would have said so.
>
> I am not claiming that we should stop commenting on what Peirce wrote.
> And I certainly do not want to block anybody's way of inquiry.
>
> But I am highly skeptical about any claims or implications about what
> he "really" meant. Juxtaposing quotations is fine. But it's essential
> to make a sharp distinction between Peirce's words and anybody else's.
>
> John
>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-----------------------------
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 .
