BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I object to your view that my analysis of Peirce is not "an
interpretation of Peirce's words". I have pointed out how I derive
this analysis - from his texts. All you have the right to say - is
that you disagree and that YOUR interpretation is different. You have
no authoritative right to declare that your interpretation - and
that's what it is - an interpretation - is the RIGHT one.
To say that one sticks to one's views by 'tenacity' rather than by
using 'the scientific method' is of course a description of my
character - and is a character flaw - and it is a trivial sidestep to
say - oh, no, I'm not speaking about YOU personally, only about your
method'. My method is an integral part of my identity! So- you can't
split up one's 'method' from one's identity!
And - I don't 'assign views to Peirce that 'directly contradict him'
- I've pointed out the texts - and your response is only that I am
'misreading' them. I disagree.
Yes, I consider it unacceptable that you rewrote John Sowa's words,
and inserted my name, to make it seem as if he was referring to me. I
think I do have the right to comment on this - and need not wait for
John Sowa to comment. If you considered that his words referred to
any and all - then, you should have left them unchanged and not
inserted my name or changed the pronouns.
You now suggest that I've never heard of 'subjective idealism'? I've
been a professor for 30+ years, dealing in cognitive processes and
societal organization - and I assure you - I've heard of it. You,
however, still haven't explained 'objective idealism as you interpret
it - instead you are using Peirce's definition of 'idealism' - which
is NOT, in my view, the same as 'objective idealism'.
As I said - you and I interpret Peirce very differently. I don't
think that you have the right to say more than this - i.e., I don't
think that you have the right to declare that I am misreading, that
my views have 'no basis in the actual text'; and so on. All I can
say about your analysis - is that I disagree and provide the texts
which I feel support my interpretation. And all you can do - is
exactly the same. But I don't think that either of us has the right
to be a 'final judge' of the 'truth' of each interpretation.
Edwina
On Sun 04/08/19 3:16 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: I stand by my interpretation of Peirce's words ...
The problem is that your position is not an "interpretation of
Peirce's words," because it has no basis in his actual text.
ET: The difference between us is 'hubris' ...
No, it is (apparently) basic reading comprehension.
ET: ... you declare that mine is false and maintained only by a
character flaw of mine [tenacity rather than the use of reason -
which you maintain that you hold].
I said nothing whatsoever about your character, only about your
method. I am criticizing your specific claims, not attacking you as
a person.
ET: What gives you the authority/right to make such an assertion?
Like anyone else on the List, I have the authority/right to express
my opinion here, as long as it is related to Peirce. What gives you
the authority/right to assign views to him that directly contradict
his own statements?
ET: I reject your moving into ad hominem.
I reject your accusation of ad hominem. Again, I have never
resorted to attacking anyone personally; instead, I have consistently
stuck to the substance, refuting unsupported assertions with verbatim
quotations from Peirce, as I do again below.
ET: And I object to your misuse of the words of John Sowa - which
were directed against you - and rewriting them to make it seem as if
he wrote them against me.
John Sowa can speak for himself if he honestly thinks that I misused
his words. For one thing, why would you suggest that they were
"directed against" me or any other individual? On the contrary, I
understood them to be expressing general principles by which he
believes that all of us should abide. Otherwise, he would be
advocating a double standard; why would the "ground rules" be
different for me than for anyone else? Some additional comments of
his from a few weeks back seems relevant here, as well.
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 ... And the methodeutic requires a
dialog. There should always be a "devil's advocate" for challenging
any claim.
No one should take it personally when someone challenges a specific
claim--especially when that challenge is accompanied by "evidence and
reasoning about the evidence," as mine has been in this case. The
method of science requires subjecting our fallible hypotheses to the
scrutiny and well-founded criticism of others.
ET: Again- I consider that Peirce's definition of idealism in 6.24
is one that applies to 'subjective idealism' with mind as primordial
and matter as derived from mind.
Based on how this exchange has gone, it appears to me that you had
never even heard of "subjective idealism" until I introduced it in my
explanation of why Peirce presumably wanted to distinguish his version
of idealism from that one. Moreover, you have persistently ignored
the other relevant passage that I have quoted several times now,
which is unmistakably clear.
CSP: The paradox here has always been that mind and matter are of
disparate natures. But the maxim of continuity will say: this
disparateness is a mere matter of degree. Either mind is a peculiar
kind of matter, or else matter is a peculiar sort of mind. Which is
it? If mind is nothing but a highly complicated arrangement of
matter,--for which theory there is much to be said,--we are landed in
materialism, and nominalism is not much in error after all. But if, on
the other hand, matter is nothing but effete mind,--mind so completely
under the domination of habit as to act with almost perfect regularity
& to have lost its powers of forgetting & of learning, then we are
brought to the more elevating theory of idealism. (R 936:3; no date)
The last sentence is directly parallel to how Peirce described "the
one intelligible theory of the universe" in CP 6.25--"that matter is
effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." According to
Peirce's own words, this view is "the more elevating theory of
idealism"; specifically, objective idealism that affirms the reality
of matter as "a peculiar sort of mind," rather than subjective
idealism that denies the reality of matter altogether. Both kinds of
idealism affirm "the physical law as derived and special, the
psychical law alone as primordial" (CP 6.24).
ET: But his objective idealism is very different and defines
neither as primordial but as both emerging after the 'Nothing' and
the indeterminacy [1ns]. They co-evolve in complexity and are never
separate or 'individual' ... My meaning is that Matter only exists
when it is organized into laws by Mind; and Mind only exists when it
is organizing Matter into laws.
This is not Peirce's objective idealism, it is your own construct,
which for some reason you wish to ascribe to him. Again, CP 6.24-25
says nothing whatsoever about a fifth alternative to dualism,
neutralism, materialism, and idealism that involves matter and mind
"co-evolving." According to that text, if neither is primordial,
then they are either "two radically different kinds of substance"
(dualism) or "independent" and "on a par" (neutralism); and Peirce
explicitly rejected both of these options.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 7:37 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
I stand by my interpretation of Peirce's words - I note that you
stand by your interpretation. The difference between us is 'hubris';
you declare that your interpretation is true - while you declare that
mine is false and maintained only by a character flaw of mine
[tenacity rather than the use of reason - which you maintain that you
hold].
. What gives you the authority/right to make such an assertion? Both
of us are interpreting Peirce - and neither of us has been able to
convince the other of the validity of our views. That's as far as it
can go. I reject your moving into ad hominem. And I object to your
misuse of the words of John Sowa - which were directed against you -
and rewriting them to make it seem as if he wrote them against me.
Again- I consider that Peirce's definition of idealism in 6.24 is
one that applies to 'subjective idealism' with mind as primordial and
matter as derived from mind. But his objective idealism is very
different and defines neither as primordial but as both emerging
after the 'Nothing' and the indeterminacy [1ns]. They co-evolve in
complexity and are never separate or 'individual'.
This is not the same as Mind=Matter, and when I say that Mind
becomes Matter/Matter becomes Mind - this simple phrase, perhaps too
simple -- is not an equation of similarity or merging of identity.
My meaning is that Matter only exists when it is organized into laws
by Mind; and Mind only exists when it is organizing Matter into laws.
This does not mean, as you suggest, that I mean that Matter exists
outside of Mind; I didn't write that; I said that it exists outside
of what YOU OR I think of them - but it doesn't exist outside of
Mind.
I repeat - both of us are equal interpreters of Peirce. We haven't
been able to convince each other of the validity of our different
interpretations of Peirce. That's as far as any debate should go. I
don't see that an argument based on a self-assertion that one's
interpretation is the Truth, while the other person's interpretation
is due to their 'misreading' and 'tenacity' - is a valid argument.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
