Jon, List, Thanks for the corrections, esp. the first re: the correct dating of a quotation.
As for the other matter, except for that one untoward remark reproduced as your second item, and further noting your on-list apology in the third item, explaining that it came from a acute sense of, as I see it, justified frustration (in the heat of the moment) at the time of the 'objective idealism' discussion, I have seen you as acting in a respectful manner on the list; and this even as you equanimously suffered what I recently termed "intellectual harassment" time and again at the hands of another list member. Edwina has once again said that she will no longer engage you in this forum. I was sorry to read that, especially since you are both such intelligent people. But unless she changes her mind, it might be best for you not to respond to her posts (unless, of course, you or your thinking on certain philosophical matters is explicitly mentioned by her). Of course, you should feel free to do whatever *you* think best. Meanwhile, let us all try to be better pragmatists in the forum, practicing the kind of ethics of inquiry of which Peirce might approve. Best, Gary R (writing, mainly, as moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > One correction--CP 1.412 is from 1887-1888, not 1891, so it reflects an > even earlier stage of Peirce's thinking on these matters than what he wrote > in the *Monist *series. > > Whether particular comments are snide, unprofessional, and/or insulting is > in the eye of the beholder. John Sowa and Gary Fuhrman suggested a couple > of good List practices almost exactly a year ago, which I have tried (but > sometimes failed) to employ ever since. > > JFS: Avoid the word 'you'. Every occurrence of the word 'you' shifts > the focus from the statement to the person who made the statement. This > immediately puts that person on the defensive--and the result is an > escalating round of *ad hominem* attacks and defenses. > > > GF: *Do not take offense*. If nobody takes offense, nobody can *give* > offense, even if they are trying to. Those who are defensive about their > own statements, on the other hand, will often take offense when none is > intended. If we can avoid this, the impulse to *give* offense is likely > to dry up, because the would-be offender will not succeed in getting the > reaction he seeks. > > > Since you understandably (but mistakenly) thought that Edwina "actually > quoted" me, for the record--yet again--here is what I actually said. > > JAS: *Rational *people are open to persuasion, rather than dogmatically > maintaining their predetermined views regardless of the evidence. > *Credible *scholars ground their opinions about a past author in what his > texts actually say, rather than projecting their predetermined views on > him. I *always* encourage others to draw their own conclusions after > evaluating the various arguments. > > > JAS: At this point, I have to wonder why I bothered spending so much time > and effort explaining myself (again, and again, and again) to someone who > is so obviously determined *not *to understand, or perhaps is simply > *incapable *of understanding. Frankly, I am not sure which of these is > the more charitable alternative. > > JAS: I apologize for the tone of the second quote, which reflects my > frustration in the heat of the moment. The truth is that both of us are > quite relentless in our own ways, but from my standpoint, our latest > dispute was never about my *opinion *being right and yours being > wrong--it was about a plain-sense reading of *Peirce's *own texts, > specifically CP 6.24-25. The truth is that both of us are also quite > intelligent, as our List participation indicates, but that is not the same > thing as being capable of understanding--especially when a previously > settled belief is challenged. > > > At issue in that thread was not Peirce's cosmology as described in various > ways over two-plus decades, but rather his (objective) idealism as > explicitly spelled out in one particular passage and repeated in other > contemporaneous ones (1891-1892). Since Edwina evidently considers being > "determined *not *to understand" as "the more charitable alternative," at > this point I will simply agree with your concluding statement addressed to > her. > > GR: And for the record, I do not think that you lack the "capacity to > understand" but, rather, that you are doggedly determined not to change you > attitude regarding a matter on which you have long held a position even > when, as in this case, the evidence suggests that good pragmatic practice > suggest strongly you ought at least consider doing so, say, by re-reading > the last lecture in RLT and everything Peirce wrote on the topic in the > 20th century. > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:20 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Edwina, List, >> >> We are most certainly in disagreement in this matter as we always have >> been and, most likely, always will be. For if this passage doesn't convince >> you that Peirce, and *by his own admission,* either changed his mind or >> further developed his thought. . . >> >> Dr. Edward Montgomery remarked that my theory was not so much >> *evolutionary* as it was *emanational **[that is, Peirce's earlier >> suggestion that 1ns just sprung forth "**out of utterly causeless >> determinations of single events" made his theory "emanational"]*; and >> Professor Ogden Rood pointed out that there must have been *some >> original tendency to take habits which did not arise according to my >> [1891-92] hypothesis;* while I myself was most struck by the difficulty >> of so explaining the law of sequence in time,* if I proposed to make all >> laws developed from single **events**; since an event already supposes >> Time ["before time yet existed"] *(1908, most emphasis is mine). >> >> >> . . .then nothing will. It seems to me likely that you will stick to your >> position even if it does not represent, as in this case, Peirce's mature >> reflections, indeed re-thinking of the matter. You may disagree with his >> late analysis, but your own is at strictly at odds with it. Again: >> >> Professor Ogden Rood pointed out that there must have been some original >> *tendency >> to take habits *which did *not* arise according to my [1891-92] >> hypothesis. >> >> >> . . . and Peirce agrees with Rood that he was in error in not clearly >> seeing and stating that original 'tendency' to take 'habits' (discussed in >> posts of Jon's as themselves words implying 3ns). >> >> And not only does he agree that he did not clearly see the need to >> valorize this habit-taking tendency (3ns), but he also *explicitly *agrees >> with Montgomery that he was in error to see the earliest cosmos in terms of >> "developments out of utterly causeless determinations of single events" >> (1908), that is, in terms of the "causeless" sporting of 1nses. You may >> argue the contrary until you're blue in the face, but this is clearly >> Peirce's position in 1908. >> >> Should you ever attempt an analysis of Peirce's late thoughts on the >> genesis of the cosmos, say, the 1898 blackboard in RLT, and include >> excerpts from it -- which I assume you will find supportive of your own >> position -- I would be both surprised and delighted to continue this >> inquiry with you. But I am almost certain that that will *not* happen >> and that you will continue to principally cite the 1891 passage as proof >> positive that you are correct. You, it seems, *will* have the last word >> on what Peirce thought in this matter rather than he. And by "last word" I >> mean here what Peirce had to say from at least 1898 on which has been >> discussed here at length, and which valorizes continuity as 3ns from the >> get-go. Whom, may I ask (besides John Sowa, apparently), maintains your >> position today? Certainly no contemporary scholar immersed in Peirce's >> mature views regarding continuity. >> >> In addition, a remark about the manner of your response to my post. You >> concluded. >> >> >> ET: I think that this kind of discussion has to be allowed - without >> snide comments about whether our opponents have the 'capacity to >> understand' or not. >> >> A casual reader might think that here -- and elsewhere in your post on >> more substantive matters such as "the womb of indeterminacy" passage -- >> that you were referring to me as having made (in the snippet just quoted) >> what you characterized as "snide comments." Snide or not, it was Jon and >> not I who made the 'capacity to understand' comment. So, I would appreciate >> it that in the future, when you are pointing to list member's words, that >> you identify that person, especially, as in this case, when you have >> actually quoted him. >> >> And for the record, I do not think that you lack the "capacity to >> understand" but, rather, that you are doggedly determined not to change you >> attitude regarding a matter on which you have long held a position even >> when, as in this case, the evidence suggests that good pragmatic practice >> suggest strongly you ought at least consider doing so, say, by re-reading >> the last lecture in RLT and everything Peirce wrote on the topic in the >> 20th century.. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
