John, List, I so thoroughly disagree with you that at this point there's not *much* more to be said. Your arguments *contra* Jon Alan Schmidt have been consistently methodological, not at all substantive. And as far as I can see, you have conclusively shown yourself to have a double standard in that regard. It would indeed be easy to cite many, many examples of this hypocritical double standard and, indeed, many have been cited on this list. I would certainly not be loathe to rehearse some of them if need be.
More to the point, there are those scholars who rather completely disagree with your and Edwina's (mis)characterization of Jon's work. One need only look over the last couple of decades of articles published in *Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society* to see that some (but hardly all, since his philosophical interests are rather far-ranging) of Jon's work falls into a category of Peirce scholarship, *semeiotic grammar*, which you and Edwina seem to oppose almost in principle, but which is seen by many Peirce scholars -- and to this day -- as essential, even quintessential, in the understanding of what Peirce's philosophy involves, the changes in his terminology often being expressions of the conceptual growth -- or fine turning -- of important, even crucial philosophical concepts; and not only in his logic as semeiotic, but also in his phenomenology and metaphysics. To ignore such conceptual development expressed in Peirce's develop of terminological subtlety seems to me to smack of intellectual laziness. If Jon can hold in memory many of Peirce's semeiotic grammatical distinctions and their relations to each other (something which I certainly struggle to do), well all the more power to him. And let us not forget that semeiotic grammar is the first of the three branches of logic as semeiotic which Peirce posits and develops. Your seeming rush to 'application' is, as I now see it, based on your hubristic (there's no more accurate term for it) estimation that you *already* grasp what's important in Peirce's philosophy, indeed, that you have come to 'determine' *what* *it* *is*, something which you accuse *others* of doing even while they -- Jon in this case -- much more modestly pursue abductions which their research has brought them to: no more. This is nothing short of hypocritical and, so, from the standpoint of the ethics of science, repugnant. I might note as a sign of Jon's work being seen as of growing interest and value to the Peirce community more generally than you and Edwina see it, that a paper of his is scheduled to appear in an upcoming edition of *Transactions*, the premiere journal of Peircean scholarship. And it is my prediction that Jon's work in semeiotic and metaphysics (to mention just two areas of his interest) will grow in importance within the Peirce community at large. You may not understand and/or value it, but I and others do: it's just that simple. This is not to suggest that on-list and off-list that Jon and I have agreed on everything. Far from it. Indeed, in our off-list discussions (with Gary Fuhrman) on Peirce's conception of Time, both Gary and I have sometimes very much disagreed with Jon as to the character and importance of phenomenology vs the mathematics and logic of time. But I have *never* found him to be anything but receptive to deeply considering arguments which we have presented to him. Of course he puts forth his own strong arguments and strongly defend the -- until he is convinced of another's argumentation. Yet in papers on Peirce's conception of time which he has been developing, it is clear that he *has* significantly modified his views as he came to seen the value of Gary and my phenomenological perspectives (which, by the way, are quite different from each other's). In short, he is not a rigid theoretical dogmatist. Far from it. I'd say, the opposite of it. He is certainly significantly more humble than any of his critics on this list despite their arguments to the contrary. In conclusion, I think it would behoove you -- at least in this forum -- to work to develop you own semeiotic rather than continuing to attempt to denigrate Jon's, an attempt which if persisted in I am certain will fail. And to offer yet another prediction, I do not think that future scholars will look at such denigration of another scholar's work favorably. Best, Gary R "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, > > As I said before, I believe that JAS has been trying to force Peirce's > writings into a rigid box. Peirce repeatedly said that his ideas were > constantly growing. In fact, that is why he was unable to finish his many > book projects: as he starts writing, he gets so many new ideas that > earlier chapters need to be rewritten. When he does that, he needs to > rewrite the later ones. That leads to an endless cycle of revisions. > > But Jon's project is static. It's impossible for any static project to > capture the open-ended growth of Peirce's ideas. > > GR> seeing John's self-contradictions spelled out was pretty astonishing, > and revealing, to me as well. They've been pointed out before; I've done so > myself on-list and off-list, apparently to no avail. > > No! When anybody points out a mistake that I made, I immediately correct > it. > > But neither you nor JAS has ever found a self-contradiction in anything I > wrote. There are some points where you disagreed with my interpretation of > what Peirce wrote. The issues are rather subtle, and I've been busy with > other writings. When they're published, I'll show how they explain the > issues that Peirce was addressing. > > As for that off-list note, I did not respond because the note was so > hopelessly wrong that there was no point in saying anything. > > As for my reasons for supporting the comments by Edwina, Auke, and others, > the reasons are simple: they have a more open-ended attitude that is > closer in spirit to what Peirce was writing, Even when I have some > quibbles about what they write, they are more willing to discuss the issues > and evaluate the alternatives. > > I find their manner of discussion a breath of fresh air in comparison to > Jon's rigid box. I have often pointed out some serious misinterpretations > that Jon made. But he never admits any alternative. > > 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 .
