List, I will be referring here once again to Joe Ransdell's thoughtful and sensible guidelines for participation in Peirce-L. http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM
There is little doubt in my mind that everyone here who hasn't read them, should read them. For Joe was not only an excellent philosopher, but he was also a wise man, including, and perhaps especially, regarding the norms of good communication within an e-forum such as this. It is my belief that this forum would be a better and happier place were these guidelines adhered to. For those who have read them, they are worth at least another re-reading, and in the light of recent disagreement here, especially those passages under "The Right to Self-Defense in the Protection of Reputation" and the "Appendix: On Handling of Cases of Offense Taken," which I'll append immediately below my signature for any list member who wants to get quickly at them. Joe writes, and I think it is important to remember, that "Good thinking is often driven by strong feeling," and as most all of us here feel pretty passionately about Peirce, it is understandable that we occasionally come into conflict, offense is taken, etc. When this happens "someone who has taken offense should be ready to specify 'exactly' what it is that has been found offensive--preferably by use of direction quotation . . Vague allusions to the tone or character of the message as a whole will not do, and are irresponsible when the opportunity is plaining available to be exact, since all conversation is recorded and retrievable by all in verbatim form. [Note: the archives are open to all; there is no need to keep 'private' archives. GR]. Refusal to make good on this negates the application of the first principle [see, the Appendix below], i.e., the person supposedly attacked has no right to claim than any such damage has occurred if they are unwilling to substantiate it by verbatim quotation. Best, Gary (writing as list moderator) THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IN THE PROTECTION OF REPUTATION ------------------------------ Special situations do arise, though, in which someone feels aggrieved at what someone else has said to or about them in the public forum and feels it important to set the record straight in the forum as well, not necessarily out of anger but as a matter of the practical need to exercise self-defense of reputation as regards personal or professional comportment. I will address this more fully and adequately in an appendix below, but it should be understood that not even the list manager has the right to deny to a person the opportunity of rectifying, by speaking in his or her own behalf, what he or she believes to be serious misunderstandings about themselves as persons, private or public, that have been or are being generated in the forum. *This right of personal self-defense must be respected, even when the person seems to be mistaken or to be using poor judgment in pursuing it.* See the appendix in further explanation of the reason for this and for some procedural points and policies that are especially important in this connection. APPENDIX: ON HANDLING CASES OF OFFENSE TAKEN PEIRCE-L has not had serious problems arising from people taking offense at things said about them — such occurrences are inevitable in an arena of lively discourse but the few occasions of this on PEIRCE-L have been resolved quickly and without serious effects — but all lively list-based discussion arrangements are inherently prone to runaway communicational patterns because we have not yet developed traditions of communicational self-control for this medium that will tend to contain them automatically. It is true that a manager can regulate discourse on such lists by using this or that technique of moderation, usually involving message filtering, that insures that no such thing occurs, but it will probably be at the expense of insuring that little spontaneous thinking will occur either. Good thinking is often driven by strong feeling, and the stance taken here is that the problem is not how to eliminate the expression of impassioned thought but how to compensate for its tendency to excess. When moderation takes the form of message filtering, the public forum as such ceases to exist, implicitly replaced by an ill-defined discussion group that is unlikely to generate much worthwhile discussion either unless still further control measures are introduced. This may well be justified for this or that purpose, but the aim of PEIRCE-L is to make a public forum available, and the control here has to be compensatory rather than prohibitive. In general, the solution seems clear enough on the face of it: the medium itself makes it possible to rectify or attempt to compensate for mistakes almost immediately, and we should become accustomed to the idea that what is said is not something that is completed at the moment it is uttered but is a function of the ongoing communicational process in which it occurs. There is a very real sense in which the future can and does determine the past, in communication, and because we can reclaim, shape, and rectify what we say so easily here we can afford to take more chances than would be prudent in a less plastic communicational medium. This can be liberating in that it makes it easier for us to acknowledge what we have actually said and done, since what has been done can so easily be undone or re-done—at times and in part, at least—and we are not so strongly compelled to denial and to averting our eyes from our own behavior in order to preserve our sense for our own integrity. In a fluid and sufficiently rapid communicational process we can see ourselves as becoming rather than simply as being, and we can become more supple and adaptive in the interest of cultivating a developing integrity rather than being tempted constantly to falsify ourselves to ourselves to achieve the illusion of a past—and increasingly petrified—integrity. The conversational dynamics of this type of communication is not well enough understood by us yet to take it for granted that conversational sanity will always prevail as it has thus far, though. The following are intended as having the force of more or less loosely adhered to *procedural policies* in cases where somebody believes that somebody else has responded to them in a way that must be construed as a personal attack, with the understanding that application always requires judgment and that it is the spirit rather than the letter that should rule. They are formulated both as advisories and to provide the list manager with a basis for action in case the need for it should arise. First, it should be taken for granted, as mentioned in the body of the welcome message above, that if somebody does feel that someone else has personally attacked them and in such a way as to be damaging to them if this is not rectified somehow, they have a right to self-defense in the public forum in which that has supposedly occurred. This is so regardless of whether or not one thinks they are using good judgment in pursuing the matter. This does not mean they have a right to "fight it out" but rather that they have a right to take public steps designed to demonstrate the truth of the matter, as they conceive it. This should of coure be done as economically as possible. Second, someone who has taken offense should be ready to specify *exactly* what it is that has been found offensive — preferably by use of direct quotation — since the supposed offender may misunderstand or even have little or no idea as to what the person offended is disturbed about and thus be in no position to make the necessary corrections. Vague allusions to the tone or character of the message as a whole will not do, and are irresponsible when the opportunity is plainly available to be exact since all conversation is recorded and retrievable by all in verbatim form. Refusal to make good on this negates the application of the first principle, i.e. the person supposedly attacked has no right to claim that any such damage has occurred if they are unwilling to substantiate it by verbatim quotation. Third, if one is offended and feels that this must be addressed publicly one should explicitly direct one's requests for amends (apology, retraction, whatever) to the supposed offender, as distinct from addressing the forum in general in a manner that gives the impression that one is doing the verbal equivalent of pointing an accusing finger at someone *outside the circle of those explicitly addressed.* It is easy to lapse into the latter stance unthinkingly (I have done it myself more than once) since there is often reason to comment to the list in general about what an individual has said. There is nothing illegitimate in that; but when the content or tone becomes accusatory in such a way that the accused is being spoken of as if external to the persons being directly addressed, then the finger-pointing rhetorical stance begins to take on unwanted implications. It is, in fact, the stance that typically leads to public stonings and scapegoating generally. These things do occur in this medium — never by conscious intention, to be sure, since people never regard themselves as actually doing that sort of thing even after they have done it (other descriptions are always readily available) — but they need not if we recognize how they begin and stop the process before it is well-established. Fourth, other list members should not attempt to do the impossible, which is to resolve the problem themselves by intervening and arguing for who is in the right. List members simply do not relate to one another as such in a way that makes that possible, tempting though it may be. Be patient with the people involved, even though you find it irritating that it is happening, recognizing that they have a right to protect their personal reputations by correcting what they think, rightly or wrongly, to be damage done to them. You might someday find yourself in such a position, rightly or wrongly, and it would then be quite clear to you why it is so important to recognize that fundamental right of self-defense. If the manager is acting competently, the aggrieved parties will be allowed to make the appropriate statements, so that all can see what has really happened or is being claimed, after whichnall public discussion of that matter in the forum will be closed, and regular conversation should continue undisturbed. (Indeed, regular conversation can continue regardless of what else is happening, anyway, but in practice it usually comes to a halt temporarily when something disturbing occurs.) A final word: note that these are *managerial procedures* and are not to be confused with *legal or quasi-legal procedures.* The aim is only to control the conversational flow in an appropriate way, not to provide procedures for determining who is right and who is wrong. This is not a court of law and cannot be converted into one. Neither the manager nor anybody else can decide who is right or wrong as a public conclusion. All that can be required here—but it is enough— is that the people in the forum are given a chance to understand what has actually happened, insofar as that can be achieved in the way indicated. *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:24 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > John, list, > talking about harmony, I want to say, that harmony in music is not an easy > thing: In ancient times, music scales (Pythagorean) were separate in the > way, that it was impossible to switch from one scale to another. This is > for a mathematical reason: It really is impossible, strictly. Later, > Wertheim and Bach have established the "well-tempered piano"- scale, that > divides an octave into twelve parts, of which any of the twelve scales each > consisting of seven tones can be picked of, and it is possible to go from > one scale to another. But this is only a compromise: Chords are not > completely in harmony anymore, especially not the septimes- but they are a > bit disharmonic anyway, so nobody gets it. But: For some reason it is so, > that dividing an octave into twelve parts comes close, but not exactly, to > a situation in which the tones fit each other in the sense of multiples of > overtones. This is a very funny coincidence. On this coincidence the whole > music sytem of nowadays is based on, other than in ancient times > (Pythagoras). You may say, that, other than in Pythagorean times, nowaday´s > music is, due to this compromise, hot. Though so little that it is hard to > hear. Otherwise Bach would not have tolerated it. > > > > 21. Juni 2019 um 23:17 Uhr > "John F Sowa" <[email protected]>*wrote:* > > Jon, Edwina, Jerry, and Helmut, > > This discussion gets into issues that are fundamental to methodeutic. > > > JFS: All my objections would vanish if Jon would make one simple > > change: replace every occurrence of 'harmony' with 'hypothesis'. > > > > JAS: As an alternative, I respectfully request that you accept my > > explanations and not try to dictate how I express myself. > > > > ET: Jon - I don't think you realize what you are doing. There is > > no need to be so defensive about what others write to you with > > regard to your comments/interpretations! > > I'm trying to be as constructive as I can. And I hope that other > people would apply the same criteria to what I write. I would > welcome any criticism anyone may have about what I write. I may > agree or not. But that's what I would expect. > > Re harmonizing: I searched CP for all occurrences of 'harmonize' > to see what Peirce had to say, favorable or unfavorable. > > > CP 1.6. The works of Duns Scotus have strongly influenced me. > > ... I am convinced that it will go far toward supplying the > > philosophy which is best to harmonize with physical science. > > But note what he wrote in the next paragraph: > > CP 1.7. The demonstrations of the metaphysicians are all moonshine. > > The best that can be done is to supply a hypothesis, not devoid of > > all likelihood, in the general line of growth of scientific ideas, > > and capable of being verified or refuted by future observers. > > In short, this favorable example of harmonizing is a source for > *hypotheses* that must then be tested by scientific methodeutic. > > For a more critical comment about harmonizing, see below for an > extended excerpt from CP 5.406 to 5.408. In 5.406, Peirce praises > "The real spirit of Socrates, who I hope would have been delighted > to have been 'overcome in argument,' because he would have learned > something by it." > > Later in 5.406, Peirce is highly critical of "All the efforts of > the scholastic doctors [which] are directed toward harmonizing > their faith in Aristotle and their faith in the Church." In that > sense, their harmonization is more than a hypothesis. It's blend > of two preconceived theories, which they are trying to preserve > by any rhetorical methods they can muster. Peirce writes "they > betray their feeble hold of the conception of what truth is." > > In 5.407, Peirce states his famous definition of truth as "The > opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who > investigate." But in 5.408, he warns "Our perversity and that of > others may indefinitely postpone the settlement of opinion; it might > even conceivably cause an arbitrary proposition to be universally > accepted as long as the human race should last... [Yet] if, after > the extinction of our race, another should arise with faculties > and disposition for investigation, that true opinion must be the > one which they would ultimately come to." > > In summary, harmonizing a variety of sources can be a good method > for developing a starting hypothesis. But a premature harmonization > that is not subjected to open-ended and unrestricted scientific > methodeutic can be "perversity" that blocks the way of inquiry. > > > JFS: I googled those two terms ["the Plastic Nature of Cudworth" > > and "artifex of nature"] to see how Peirce regarded the Graphist. > > > > JLRC: Thank you John, for posting this reference to Ralph Cudworth’s > > work. The online article was rather fascinating wrt. some of the > > roots of CSP’s philosophy that lies outside of logic and chemical > > logic. > > > > It is an alternate historical view of “three-ness”... and an early > > view of “system’s thinking”. > > Yes. I have found that studying Peirce's sources *and* later > developments in the 20th & 21st c. helps to put his ideas in > perspective. For the record, following is URL for Cudworth: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Principle > > HR > > But I guess it would be quite helpful to combine Peircean theories > > with something like systems theories and ontology, whether or not > > Peirce would have liked that. > > Peirce was a voracious reader, and many of his best insights came > from his reaction to what he was reading. After he moved to Arisbe, > he no longer had daily access to a research library. But his letters > to and from Lady Welby and her group had a very strong influence on > the later development of his semeiotic. > > The changes in his thoughts and subject matter are probably more > strongly affected by his reading than by a deliberate rejection of > his earlier writings. To be faithful to his legacy, we should > remember his principle that the meaning of any general is in its > implications for the future. > > John > _____________________________________________________________________ > > CP 5.406. > ... The real spirit of Socrates, who I hope would have been delighted > to have been "overcome in argument," because he would have learned > something by it, is in curious contrast with the naive idea of the > glossist, for whom (as for "the born missionary" of today) discussion > would seem to have been simply a struggle. When philosophy began to > awake from its long slumber, and before theology completely dominated > it, the practice seems to have been for each professor to seize upon any > philosophical position he found unoccupied and which seemed a strong > one, to intrench himself in it, and to sally forth from time to time to > give battle to the others... > > All the efforts of the scholastic doctors are directed toward > harmonizing their faith in Aristotle and their faith in the Church, > and one may search their ponderous folios through without finding an > argument which goes any further. It is noticeable that where different > faiths flourish side by side, renegades are looked upon with contempt > even by the party whose belief they adopt; so completely has the idea of > loyalty replaced that of truth-seeking. Since the time of Descartes, > the defect in the conception of truth has been less apparent. Still, it > will sometimes strike a scientific man that the philosophers have been > less intent on finding out what the facts are, than on inquiring what > belief is most in harmony with their system. It is hard to convince a > follower of the a priori method by adducing facts; but show him that an > opinion he is defending is inconsistent with what he has laid down > elsewhere, and he will be very apt to retract it. These minds do not > seem to believe that disputation is ever to cease; they seem to think > that the opinion which is natural for one man is not so for another, > and that belief will, consequently, never be settled. In contenting > themselves with fixing their own opinions by a method which would lead > another man to a different result, they betray their feeble hold of the > conception of what truth is. > > CP 5.407. > On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a > cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far > enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they > apply it. One man may investigate the velocity of light by studying > the transits of Venus and the aberration of the stars; another by the > oppositions of Mars and the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites; a third by > the method of Fizeau; a fourth by that of Foucault; a fifth by the > motions of the curves of Lissajoux; a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, and a > ninth, may follow the different methods of comparing the measures of > statical and dynamical electricity. They may at first obtain different > results, but, as each perfects his method and his processes, the results > are found to move steadily together toward a destined centre. So > with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most > antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a > force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This > activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a > foreordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of > the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no > natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate > opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and > reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by > all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object > represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would > explain reality. > > CP 5.408. > ... Our perversity and that of others may indefinitely postpone the > settlement of opinion; it might even conceivably cause an arbitrary > proposition to be universally accepted as long as the human race should > last. Yet even that would not change the nature of the belief, which > alone could be the result of investigation carried sufficiently far; > and if, after the extinction of our race, another should arise with > faculties and disposition for investigation, that true opinion must be > the one which they would ultimately come to. > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
