Jon, list, You wrote:
JAS: To be fair, it was actually the subsequent thread <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-06/msg00002.html> that I started about "Peirce on the Reality of God" that John deemed unworthy of further List discussion. Since Peirce's views were unmistakably clear in the passages that I quoted initially, I saw no reason to belabor them, and ironically the last several posts consisted primarily of John and Edwina agreeing with each other that there should be no further posts on that topic. "To be fair" is a facet of the kind of ethics of inquiry which I'd like to see more of on this list. And while I stand corrected on which thread "John deemed unworthy of further list discussion," my point remains that not one here has the right to make such a determination. Such attempts to stop discussion on a topic seem to me to be clear cases of attempting "to block the way of inquiry." The idea of "John and Edwina agreeing with each other that there should be no further posts on that topic" seems to me to reject the very spirit of Peircean inquiry. JAS: On the other hand, it sounded like you wanted to say more in response to my last post in the thread <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-05/msg00238.html> about "Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric," but ran out of time before leaving on your trip. I, for one, remain interested in your further thoughts. Indeed, I have a great deal more to say in that thread. Perhaps if I didn't have to spend time dealing with such absurdities as John Sowa's commenting that "These two sources show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap withanything Jon was writing about." I might actually find the time to draft a response or two. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: 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). > > > To be fair, it was actually the subsequent thread > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-06/msg00002.html> that I > started about "Peirce on the Reality of God" that John deemed unworthy of > further List discussion. Since Peirce's views were unmistakably clear in > the passages that I quoted initially, I saw no reason to belabor them, and > ironically the last several posts consisted primarily of John and Edwina > agreeing with each other that there should be no further posts on that > topic. > > On the other hand, it sounded like you wanted to say more in response to > my last post in the thread > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-05/msg00238.html> about > "Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric," but ran out of time before > leaving on your trip. I, for one, remain interested in your further > thoughts. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 6:33 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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* >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
