John, list, JS: As the moderator, you have a responsibility to be fair to all parties in any debate. But you frequently take Jon's side, while ignoring or even belittling the points raised by other parties to the discussion.
I have been moderating this forum for almost 10 years now following Joe's death, and of course I agree that as moderator of peirce-l that I "have a responsibility to be fair to all." It was just that tendency towards fairness that led Joseph Ransdell to request of TPG that I be offered the position of moderator of the list upon his death. It has sometimes been a challenging task, but I would strongly dispute your suggestion that I am not being 'fair' in this or any matter. I disagree that I "frequently take Jon's side"--I am more interested in stopping offense than defending anyone. That's why, before I addressed you in a moderator's note last month as you continued to seem to me to break, even disrespect the culture of the list in making blanket judgments, insulting comments, and what I interpreted then and now as calls to block the way of inquiry, that I wrote a general note to the list reminding them of the tenets of the culture of the forum which Joe had formulated many years ago. It twas only after you ignored my plea for respect and tolerance that I addressed you in the matter personally. And while I may 'ignore' points made by others on the list, time and interest dictate for *everyone *here what they want to respond to. I do not 'belittle' the points of others. Far from it. As I've repeatedly stated, my concern is that everyone be free to express their views here without belittlement by any other list member. It is true that I tend to agree much more with Jon's views and argumentation than you do, but I do not in any way--in my mind and in fact as I see it--favor him as person. I don't "out of hand" reject others views as you have characteristically rejected Jon's views, sometimes in a most insulting manner. Here's a recdnt sampling of such insulting snippets taken from the archives: JS: That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable. JS: "anti-Peircean" and "dogmatic" JS: If you're willing to do that, I'll offer to help. But if you You wrote: "I strongly agree with [Joe's Peirce-L] policy stated on the web site:" I would only hope that all members of the forum would display the kind of "self-controlled conversation" Joe had in mind. If a person repeatedly can't exercise that kind of intellectual self-control on this list then it is also my duty as moderator to bring them to task in the matter. However, I try to interfere as infrequently as possible and only in what I consider to be the most grievous offenses to forum culture. JS: I have only one fundamental disagreement with Jon: his attempt to "harmonize and synthesize" Peirce. Nobody is qualified to harmonize and synthesize the views of anybody else, especially not someone whose views are as rich and complex as Peirce's. His views were evolving up to the end, and he could not harmonize them himself. How many books and articles have I read that attempted to "harmonize and/or synthesize" the views of Peirce and others? You may find it a grave error to attempt to do so, but others find it unavoidable, at least to some extent. Do you claim that you yourself never do this? Yes, the best approach is to read Peirce himself (as I hope everyone on the list does), but then what? Most all of us turn to the secondary literature which, despite your claims to the contrary, not infrequently attempts to "synthesize" or "harmonize" at least aspects of Peirce's work. Monographs, for example, represent exactly that kind of sythesis. GR: Re Jon's note of June 7: I read it, saw some mistakes, but ignored them. But on June 14, you wrote that it was "a clear, complete yet extraordinarily succinct articulation..." I could not let that stand. I won't repeat the whole exchange, but see below for four excerpts: (1) Jon's note of June 7, (2) my reply to you on June 16, (3) Jon's reply on the same day, and (4) my reply later that day. I stand by my assessment of Jon's message of June 7th. GR: " . . .such absurdities as John Sowa's commenting that "These two sources how that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with anything Jon was writing about." JS: That sentence is taken out of context. See the final sentence by Peirce in the paragraph from R 280: "The Graphist must be regarded as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the Artifex of Nature." Even in context saying that "Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with anything Jon was writing about" is, in my view, patently absurd and even irresponsible. But Jon has already addressed this matter, I believe. JS: In conclusion, I promise that I'll be kinder and gentler in stating my corrections to Jon's mistakes. But I hope that you would also be more considerate in your role as moderator. That you presume that you are correct in your putative "corrections of Jon's mistakes" is just that--presumption. I hope your "kinder and gentler" approach will include your not making insulting statements such as those suggestion that Jon (and, I assume, the rest of us) should defer to John Sowa's understanding of Peirce and allow you to 'correct' our 'mistakes'. This forum was conceived as a democratic place where no one can presume that his understanding is superior to anyone else's. As for my being "more considerate" in my "role as moderator," I will certainly take that into consideration; but then I attempt to take all views of my role here into consideration. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:16 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, > > As the moderator, you have a responsibility to be fair to all > parties in any debate. But you frequently take Jon's side, > while ignoring or even belittling the points raised by other > parties to the discussion. > > GR > > I would appreciate it if you would read Joseph Ransdell's > > "How the Forum Works." > > I subscribed to Peirce-L in the 1990s, when Joe was running the > show, but I switched my email provider a few years later and lost > the connection. Joe would often correct people who made mistakes. > When I made a mistake, I appreciated the correction. I strongly > agree with the policy stated on the web site: > > > It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently > > pursued: philosophy is understood here to be essentially a > > critically directed and self-controlled conversation. > > GR > > 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 > > I have only one fundamental disagreement with Jon: his attempt to > "harmonize and synthesize" Peirce. Nobody is qualified to harmonize > and synthesize the views of anybody else, especially not someone > whose views are as rich and complex as Peirce's. His views were > evolving up to the end, and he could not harmonize them himself. > > Jon has every right to state any opinion he likes. He can say that > his opinions were inspired by Peirce. But he can't claim that Peirce > would approve of any statement other than an exact quotation. > > Re Jon's note of June 7: I read it, saw some mistakes, but ignored > them. But on June 14, you wrote that it was "a clear, complete > yet extraordinarily succinct articulation..." I could not let that > stand. I won't repeat the whole exchange, but see below for four > excerpts: (1) Jon's note of June 7, (2) my reply to you on June 16, > (3) Jon's reply on the same day, and (4) my reply later that day. > > GR > > such absurdities as John Sowa's commenting that "These two sources > > show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with anything Jon was > > writing about." > > That sentence is taken out of context. See the final sentence by > Peirce in the paragraph from R 280: "The Graphist must be regarded > as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the > Artifex of Nature." > > When Peirce cites sources, it's important to check the sources to > see what he was talking about. I googled those two terms to see > how Peirce regarded the Graphist. I found two Wikipedia articles > that explained those terms, and I included the URLs at the end of > the final excerpt below. > > Before claiming that my statement is absurd, you have an obligation > to click on those two URLs. If you do, you'll find that Peirce was > not thinking about the issues in the way that Jon implied. > > In conclusion, I promise that I'll be kinder and gentler in stating > my corrections to Jon's mistakes. But I hope that you would also > be more considerate in your role as moderator. > > John > _____________________________________________________________________ > > 1. Excerpt from note of June 7 by JAS: > > We mark positions within a motion or points within a line for a > particular purpose, and we isolate Percepts within perception or events > within Experience by attending to the corresponding Perceptual > Judgments. Peirce hinted at this in one of his explanations of > Existential Graphs. > > 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. ... 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) > > 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. A discontinuity in the flow of > perception tends to draw my attention to it involuntarily, such that the > EG for that Perceptual Judgment appears on the Sheet of Assertion. If I > choose to attend to it further--perhaps because it conflicts with my > current beliefs as derived from previous Perceptual Judgments, causing > the irritation of doubt that motivates all inquiry--then it serves as a > premiss for my subsequent deliberate reasoning; i.e., transforming that > EG along with previously scribed or transformed EGs. If truth is the > end in view, then this ought to be done in accordance with the logical > leading principles for Retroductive, Deductive, and Inductive Arguments; > in the case of necessary reasoning with EGs, the rules for erasure and > insertion. > _____________________________________________________________________ > > 2. Excerpt from note by JFS to GR on June 16: > > 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. > _____________________________________________________________________ > > 3. Excerpt from note by JAS to JFS on Jun 16: > > JFS: 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. > > No, Peirce said that the Sheet of Assertion is merely a specific portion > of an immense surface; the latter represents the interpreter's > Experience, while the former represents the interpreter's field of > attention. > > CSP: Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power to scribe > any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. (R 280:82[29]) > > JFS: But the mention of Graphist implies that Peirce is talking about a > dialog with Grapheus in the process of endoporeutic. > > No, although Peirce mentioned "Grapheus" and dialog in some of his other > writings about EGs, he did not do so in this particular one. > > there is no "dialog with Grapheus" in this case, as you can see for > yourself in the complete text of the paragraph that I quoted. > > CSP: Two parties are, in our make-believe, feigned to be concerned in > the scribing of graphs; the one called the Graphist, the other the > interpreter. 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; namely, the > former is that part of the latter that falls within the field of view of > the interpreter. Upon the great surface the Graphist alone has the power > to scribe any graph; while he scribes what he sees fit. The interpreter, > for his part, has the power, with more or less effort, to move the > graph-instances about as he pleases, so long as he keeps them separate > from one another, so that no two shall touch. In particular, he can move > such ones as he likes and as many as he likes into his field of view, > the sheet of assertion; or he can move them away. 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. The Graphist must be > regarded as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else > to the Artifex of Nature. (R 280:82-83[29-30]) > > The Graphist scribes Graphs on the immense surface, forcing the > interpreter's Experience upon him. The interpreter moves those > Graph-instances around as he pleases, presumably transforming some of > the ones that he brings into his field of attention--the Sheet of > Assertion--in accordance with the usual permissions. The illustration > here is not of "the way people solve problems," but of the way people > make inferences about their Experience, and thereby derive knowledge > from it; i.e., establish their beliefs on the basis of the Perceptual > Judgments that serve as "the first premisses of all our reasonings" (CP > 5.116, EP 2:191; 1903). > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > 4. Excerpt from note by JFS to JAS later on Jun 16: > > Thanks for the more complete quotation. The deleted parts show that > Peirce was talking about a mental dialog between two "phases" of the > same ego. If you search CP for 'dialog', you'll find 36 occurrences > of 'dialogue' or 'dialogical'. Following is a typical example: > > > thinking always proceeds in the form of a dialogue -- a dialogue > > between different phases of the ego -- so that, being dialogical, > > it is essentially composed of signs, as its matter, in the sense in > > which a game of chess has the chessmen for its matter. (CP 4.6) > > Given this quotation, note that the full paragraph talks about two > parties in a "make-believe". In this case, the interpreter does not > have a name. But CP has eight occurrences where the two parties > are named Graphist and Grapheus. Since both of them are "phases" of > the same "ego", there is no real partitioning of the SA. In fact, > this paragraph does not mention any restriction on the immense surface > where the Graphist or the interpreter may scribe or move graphs. > > > CSP: Two parties are, in our make-believe, feigned to be concerned > > in the scribing of graphs; the one called the Graphist, the other > > the interpreter. Namely, although the sheet that is actually... > > > > [See the complete paragraph from R 280 in Jon's note above.] > > > > The Graphist must be regarded as corresponding to the “Plastic > > Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the Artifex of Nature. > > Now compare this paragraph to the commentary that Jon made about it. > Note that there is no recognition of the dialog between the two > "parties" of the same "ego", and the pattern of words is unrelated > to the subject matter of the paragraph. > > > JAS, note of June 7: My Experience is forced upon me as a continuous > > stream of Perceptual Judgments, often subconsciously, like EGs... > > > > [See the full paragraph in the excerpt above.] > > This is not a clarification of that paragraph [in R 280]. It's just > a collection of random words, many of which Peirce used in various > writings. But the arrangement of those words does not clarify or > explain anything about the paragraph. > > If Jon wants to say that this is his own opinion, I have no objection. > But I strongly object to any claim that it is something that Peirce > said, meant, implied, or intended. > > And by the way, Peirce's sources can be helpful, especially when he > explicitly mentions them. For "the Plastic Nature of Cudworth", > Google found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Principle > > For "artifex of nature", Google found > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologia_Poetica > > These two sources show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with > anything Jon was writing about. >
----------------------------- 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 .
