John, List: JFS: My *only* complaint is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim that your theory is a harmonization of what Peirce intended ... If you called your theory Peircean, I would have no quarrel. But if you call it Peirce's or claim that it is what Peirce intended, I can't let it stand.
I keep asking, and you keep failing to answer--when and where have I ever made such a claim? It is no more acceptable to attribute views to me that I have not stated than to do so with Peirce. On the other hand, Edwina posted the following a few days ago. ET: As noted - I think that this basic analytic infrastructure as developed by Peirce - is THE powerful semiosic analytic tool - and wish more use would be made of it! The "analytic framework" that she described in that post was *not *"developed by Peirce" in that particular form, even if it was inspired by some of his ideas and thus qualifies as "Peircean." Why the double standard? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:56 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon and Gene, > > Jon > > We have made our respective cases for our positions > > I have no quarrel with your positions. My *only* complaint > is about the word 'harmonize' and the claim that your theory is > a harmonization of what Peirce intended. > > Peirce himself could not harmonize his own work, and it's > impossible for anybody else to reconstruct what Peirce would > have or might have added to his available MSS. > > > JFS: My concerns: CP 6.24 is quite clear as Peirce stated it; > > there is no need for a paraphrase to make it clearer. But this > > paraphrase distorts CP 6.24 in several ways: > > > > JAS: I have already addressed your concerns, and I continue to > > reject the charge of distortion. > > CP 6.24-25 is nuanced, tentative, and qualified. Deleting the > two occurrences of 'seems' makes a sharper claim. The last > sentence of 6.25 qualifies the claim by saying that more research > -- "with mathematical clearness and precision" -- is required. > > Without that qualification, the paraphrase suggests that Peirce > had completed his research. Then the word 'unambiguously' turns > the suggestion into an assertion. > > When Hartshorne edited CP vol. 6 in the late 1920s, he knew > that Einstein had gone far beyond Peirce in developing a theory > of the space, time, and physics of the universe. To his enormous > credit, Peirce had anticipated many aspects of relativity and > quantum mechanics. But Einstein and others did the work. > > Hartshorne was also listening to Whitehead's lectures and reading > Whitehead's books while he was working on Peirce's MSS. He saw > that Whitehead had independently developed many Peircean-style > insights and had integrated them with more recent theories of > relativity and quantum mechanics. > > Hartshorne (1995) was his retrospective view of the thirty years > of progress from Peirce's CP vol. 6 to Whitehead's book, > _Process and Reality_. Potter (1995) agreed with Hartshorne > about Peirce's "strengths and weaknesses". I recommend their > articles in _Peirce and Contemporary Thought_, edited by > K. L. Ketner. I also recommend the dissertation by Brioschi: > > https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/264520/367902/phd_unimi_R09823.pdf > > Note that Hartshorne called his process theology Whiteheadian, > not Whitehead's. If you called your theory Peircean, I would > have no quarrel. But if you call it Peirce's or claim that it > is what Peirce intended, I can't let it stand. > > Gene > > EXPERT TESTIMONY > > The opinion stated in court by an expert witness. An admissible > > expert opinion given in court. > > Thanks for that correction. I admit that I should have been > more precise. In a court of law, opinions are admissible > *provided that* the person who states the opinions is available > for cross-examination by the opposing side. > > 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 .
