Ben, Edwina, John, List: I greatly appreciate Ben's kind words, but would like to offer some clarifications in light of the specific concerns that John and Edwina have expressed.
BN: I want to know what Peirce thought, and that is why I most value what Jon is doing. ET: First, if you want to know what Peirce thought, then I think you will have to read the works yourself and make up your own mind. I agree with Edwina that there is no substitute for reading Peirce's own writings in order to find out what *he *thought. In particular, I highly recommend exploring the images of his actual manuscripts; this provides valuable insights into his thinking process *as it was happening*, including his tendency to change his mind *while he was writing*. I can relate to this aspect of his approach--as a saying attributed to various authors puts it, "I write to find out what I think"--but the key difference is that no one else will ever see my discarded drafts; in fact, I am very zealous about reviewing and editing anything that *will *be read by others, including my posts to the List. I suspect that this contributes to the (understandable but inaccurate) impression that my opinions on the matter at hand are always already set in stone. BN: I would very much like JAS to continue to present his understanding of what Peirce thought as JAS goes through more MSS. and tackles more subjects in it. This is a more accurate description of my approach--I say what I think *about *what Peirce thought, usually by linking and commenting on passages from his voluminous writings in a way that is intended to propose a coherent synthesis *with respect to a specific topic*. I do not claim, and never have claimed, Peirce's approval or endorsement for these efforts or their outcomes. Contrary to Edwina's frequent and tiresome complaint, I am *not *setting myself up as "The Peircean Gatekeeper." Contrary to John's latest suggestion, I am *not *"trying to produce a a definitive version of Peirce's philosophy." Like (hopefully) everyone else on the List, I consider myself to be *a student of Peirc*e, such that my attempts at "harmonizing" are primarily for the purpose of *learning *from him; but any resulting "system" is ultimately my own. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, list > > Thank you for your post but I don't think it is as simple as you outline. > > First, if you want to know what Peirce thought, then I think you will have > to read the works yourself and make up your own mind. Even if you don't > have access to all of Peirce's work and none of us do - I think it > is incumbent on anyone to make up their own mind. I don't think that anyone > on this list is The Peircean Gatekeeper. My view is that one doesn't become > a 'Peircean authority' by how much of Peirce one has read but by an > understanding of the agenda of Peirce's approach. I happen to think that > this approach is quite consistent over his lifetime, despite his different > commentaries and despite the years. I think that understanding this > approach is not based on how much one has read but on an entirely separate > issue - you either 'get it' or you don't. And we can debate what 'it' is. > > I myself, after all, disagree with much - a very great deal - of JAS's > interpretations of Peirce - and reserve the right to read Peirce and make > up my own mind. I've frequently argued with JAS but find him very > defensive about his views - and insisting only on 'constructive criticism' > - a term which is in itself meaningless. My point is that all we can do is > offer our analyses to each other - but - defending them as 'beyond > critique' is not part of an academic debate. After a while, one simply has > to 'agree to disagree'. And leave it at that. But I think some people here, > and I include JAS, have trouble doing that...and trouble 'allowing' others > to have different interpretations of Peirce. > > After all - I've been attacked, and I include JAS in this group, as not > merely misunderstanding Peirce, but as offering 'unscientific, esoteric > outlines' of his pragmatic functionality, of offering 'non-Peircean' views > which aren't In The Text and told that I should openly declare my > non-Peircean approach. {Note: I don't keep archives - which I think can be > a bit obsessive - and am paraphrasing]. > > So- it isn't as simple or one-sided as you outline. > > Edwina > > On Wed 19/06/19 8:32 AM , Ben Novak [email protected] sent: > > Dear John, Gary, et al.: > > I have been following on this listserv for many years, for a few years in > the late '90s and early '00s, and then since about 2009. > Over all that time, I have found what JAS has been doing to be the most > valuable. I understand that as his efforts to present Peirce's thought, > from a careful knowledge of more of his (Peirce's) works than most have > access to. > > I want to know what Peirce thought, and that is why I most value what Jon > is doing. John Sowa may be right that Peirce valued a constantly growing > thought process. Fine, and I recommend John show that to us. > > But I do not appreciate the personal attacks on JAS. Let him do his thing. > If one disagrees, one does not have to make it personal, simply present > what you think is correct. One does not have to slam JAS in order to do so. > > I would very much like JAS to continue to present his understanding of > what Peirce thought as JAS goes through more MSS. and tackles more subjects > in it. Please, for Goodness' sake, let him do it. Indeed, encourage him to > do it. > If anyone has a different approach, please present it without having to > attack someone. > > Advice to JAS: Don't take the attacks personally. If the attacker raises > an issue, present what you think about the issue--without referring to the > attacker. Just do your thing, because you are doing it well. > > Advice to John Sowa: If you think Peirce's thinking did not end at his > death, fine; take us to new heights. But one does not have to do that over > anyone else's dead body. > > Sincerely, > > Ben Novak > 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 > Telephone: (814) 808-5702 > Mobile: (814) 424-8501 > > "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts > themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of > Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored canvas and a > sheet of notes may remain—because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald Spengler > >
----------------------------- 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 .
