John, List: JFS: It's the height of hubris for any of us to claim that we can do the task that Peirce himself was unable to do.
On the contrary, Peirce recognized his own limitations and expressed the hope on more than one occasion that others would continue the investigations that he was only able to begin--especially in Semeiotic. JAS: In such cases, each interpreter must choose which passages to embrace and which to reject, especially if the goal is to systematize Peirce's thought as a whole--as it is for me, in particular post-1900. JFS: Whenever you attempt to do that, I keep saying No! No!! No!!! Well, please stop it. Ignore my posts if they bother you so much, or make your case for a different interpretation when you disagree with mine; but *do not block the way of inquiry*. JFS: If you want to write a book about your view of what Peirce was doing and saying, that's fine. But it would be *your book*, not Peirce's. Again, when have I said or implied otherwise? I keep asking for such evidence, and your ongoing failure to provide any speaks louder than your repeated accusations themselves. JFS: But in many lengthy threads, you have a very clear preconceived "harmony" in the back of your mind. Again, what makes you think that it is "preconceived"? I am just trying to make sense of Peirce's ideas. Am I supposed to assume instead that *any *synthesis or systematization of them is *impossible*? JFS: No matter what anybody else says, you defend your "harmonious synthesis", tooth and nail. Again, I defend my interpretations unless and until someone *persuades* me to change my mind. How does that make me different from anyone else, other than perhaps being more tenacious than most? JFS: Peirce himself couldn't make a firm decision about which older versions to keep, revise, or reject. I agree, Peirce's thought was always a work in progress such that there was never really a *definitive* version of *anything* that he wrote (cf. this <http://conceptualgraphs.org/revelator/web/papers/keelermargins1997.pdf>). But that is not my goal, either. JFS: Open debate in any and every community is always important ... There is no authority. Any evaluation must be based on evidence and reasoning about the evidence. I agree, and I hope that we can proceed accordingly going forward. I remain sincerely interested in *substantive *feedback on my initial post <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-06/msg00014.html> about "Semeiosis and Experience," as well as the linked threads that preceded it. JFS: And the methodeutic requires a dialog. There should always be a "devil's advocate" for challenging any claim. I agree, and I have found that I indeed learn the most from interacting with those who *disagree *with me on matters of interpretation--especially when they are willing to engage in good-faith dialogue. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:50 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > I changed the subject line to emphasize this topic. > > JAS > > I have to wonder exactly what you mean by "harmonize and synthesize," > > since you find it so objectionable. > > By that, I mean exactly what you set out to do: the task that Peirce > himself was not able to do. It's the height of hubris for any of us > to claim that we can do the task that Peirce himself was unable to do. > > > Peirce would have been the first to acknowledge his own fallibility > > and the incompleteness of his own investigations. His prolific > > output over the course of decades surely contains numerous > > discrepancies and outright contradictions, often simply reflecting > > the fact that he changed his mind--sometimes in the midst of writing, > > resulting in alternate drafts. In such cases, each interpreter must > > choose which passages to embrace and which to reject, especially if > > the goal is to systematize Peirce's thought as a whole--as it is for me > > Whenever you attempt to do that, I keep saying No! No!! No!!! > > If you want to write a book about your view of what Peirce was doing > and saying, that's fine. But it would be *your book*, not Peirce's. > > > I have consistently presented my interpretations and provided > > supporting argumentation (including ample quotes) for each reader's > > consideration. > > Yes. You have found many good quotations and their relationships > to other good quotations. I thank you for that. > > But in many lengthy threads, you have a very clear preconceived > "harmony" in the back of your mind. No matter what anybody else > says, you defend your "harmonious synthesis", tooth and nail. > > > each interpreter must choose which passages to embrace and > > which to reject. > > No!!!!!!!!! Peirce never rejected anything unless he found a > new version that subsumed everything useful in the earlier version > *and* the new version demonstrated a fatal flaw in the earlier. > > There are many cases were he rejected his new ideas and went back > to an older version, which, with some revisions, was superior to > the old one. Peirce himself couldn't make a firm decision about > which older versions to keep, revise, or reject. > > > Why not trust the List community to evaluate what I say for > > themselves? Again, when you believe that I am getting something > > wrong, you are welcome to make your case. > > Open debate in any and every community is always important. > But the term "design by committee" is usually a pejorative. > > > JFS: In conclusion, I promise that I'll be kinder and gentler > > in stating my corrections to Jon's mistakes. > > > > This presupposes that you are the authority on what is correct and > > what is a mistake. > > No. There is no authority. Any evaluation must be based on evidence > and reasoning about the evidence. > > Peirce's writings are the primary evidence for what he thought. > Almost as important are the sources he read or learned through > discussions. But even more important are the developments during > the century after his death. > > Peirce said that the meaning of any general is in the future - > a "would-be". An evaluation of Peirce's writings must consider > what has been and what would be. > > And the methodeutic requires a dialog. There should always be > a "devil's advocate" for challenging any claim. > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
