Gary F, - heh- that's a neat comment!!. I wasn't even discussing
whether or not your suggestion that my posts 'block the road of
inquiry' were successful or not. I can't imagine how they would be.
But you specifically asked that I be asked to 'stop blocking the path
of inquiry'. And so - I asked for examples. I gave some examples of
how I felt MY comments were 'blocked' - and note you have ignored
such examples.
And yes - I do see the difference between 'inquiry' and 'personal
opinion' so I think that's another red herring. Examples would help.
Edwina
On Sat 25/04/20 9:10 AM , [email protected] sent:
Edwina, sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that your attempts to block
the road of inquiry (such as your “six principles”) have been
successful.
However, if you don’t see the difference between inquiry and
expressing a personal opinion, it would be futile for me to try to
explain it here. Anyway I would only be paraphrasing what I (and
Peirce and Susan Haack) said at
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#attend [1].
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 25-Apr-20 08:22
To: 'Peirce-L'
; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Gary F - please tell me how I am 'blocking the way to inquiry'.
When I am critiqued by JAS when I use the phrase 'dynamic semiosis'
because Peirce used the term 'dynamic' in a textual reference to the
dyadic action of Secondness - that response is, in my view 'blocking
the way to inquiry'.
When I am critiqued by JAS that when I refer to Peircean thought
WITHOUT using a textual reference - that such an analysis is just my
personal opinion - then that response is, in my view, blocking the
way to inquiry'.
After all - it is absurd to consider that most of us - who have
been studying Peirce for years - should not be allowed to discuss
Peircean theories unless every statement is supported by a specific
text!
When I refer to Peircean texts to support my interpretations [eg, of
cosmology] and am instead told by JAS that 'this is early Peirce' and
therefore not necessarily valid - I feel that this is 'blocking the
way to inquiry'.
I think that providing the Peircean text does not also mean that
one understands that text in the full depth of Peircean thought. Such
a tactic can, in itself, 'block the way of inquiry' for it doesn't
allow the researcher to examine how the MEANING can be used to
examine reality....and thus - can be moved into examining the
biological and societal worlds.
Edwina
On Sat 25/04/20 8:00 AM , [email protected] [2] sent:
Auke, list,
Since a remark of mine was misappropriated by Edwina recently as an
excuse for yet another attack on Jon Alan Schmidt, I think I have a
responsibility to support what our moderator has said about these
attacks — and to ask Edwina and Jon S. kindly to stop blocking the
path of inquiry.
John Sowa in particular has made some valuable contributions to the
list, but in the past year or so he’s contributed nothing new,
turning instead to vociferous attacks on JAS and nonsensical claims
about what Peirce would “cringe” at. I think the motivation for
these attacks is laid bare in your own post (copied below): Jon’s
ongoing inquiry into the development of Peirce’s speculative
grammar has consistently relied on direct quotations from Peirce,
many of which have never been posted to the list before. Apparently
this is deeply resented by John and Edwina (and you too?) because
these Peirce texts are difficult to reconcile with their preconceived
notions of what Peirce was doing. It is those notions which constitute
a “rigid box” in which they would like to confine Peircean
scholarship — while forbidding other scholars such as Jon from
paraphrasing Peirce, or even pointing out connections between one
Peirce quote and another. If you don’t see the hypocrisy of this,
you must have a girder in your own eye.
As I said before, I don’t have a strong interest in Jon’s
inquiry, except where his discoveries urge me to reconsider what
I’ve previously written about Peircean semiotics in my book. Jon
doesn’t have a strong interest in my book, either. But it’s
obvious to me that his constantly evolving inquiry is an exemplary
instance of Peircean scholarship and has provided the greater part of
the original work that’s been posted to this list in the last year
or two. The claim that he “ denies it to others to have their
interpretation of Peirce's thought” is frankly absurd. His real
crime, in the view of those others, is to build his systematic
interpretation of Peirce’s speculative grammar on a broad
foundation of texts by Peirce himself. If you disagree, say so and
say why, but to attack him for posting it at all is nothing more or
less than an attempt to block the road of inquiry.
Gary f.
} Owing to general causes, logic always must be far behind the
practice of leading minds. [Peirce, BD ’Method’] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [3] }{ transition conversation
From: Auke van Breemen
Sent: 25-Apr-20 05:32
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Gary, List,
Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a
misunderstanding possible?
For me the sliver pertains to John and the girder to JAS.
It is JAS who on the one hand demands literal quotes (which belongs
to text exegesis) but on the other avoids the meat (i.e. doing
semiotics as a science).
And on top of that for himself leaves room to divert:
Again, it should go without saying for all my posts (including this
one) that they are expressions of my personal opinions based on my
interpretations of his writings.
But denies it to others to have their interpretation of Peirce's
thought.
Auke
Op 25 april 2020 om 4:35 schreef Gary Richmond :
Auke, List,
Auke wrote: I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John.
GR: Yes, 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.
Auke: It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian
method in order to uphold one's own a priori principles. But only at
the price of disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what has been
written by the authority.
GR: Indeed, John has certainly demonstrated this the last couple of
years. It always surprises -- nay, shocks -- me. The double standard
is patent.
Auke: As my mother used to say: One sees the sliver in the eye of
the other, but not the girder in ones own eye.
GR: My mother used to say this too. It was, of course, Jesus who
first said it (see: Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:42). It's certainly apt
here. Luke's version:
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out
the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the
beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the
beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull
out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Auke: That's the moment dialogue gets a nasty taste.
GR: I agree that such obvious hypocrisy is a nasty practice. As
list moderator, I'm writing this to hopefully nip it in the bud.
We've been through this sort thing here before and even rather
recently (last year). This kind of double-standard is truly appalling
and, as I've argued herel, completely counter to forum culture.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
[5]
Virus-free. www.avg.com [6]
[7]
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:53 AM < [email protected] > wrote: [8]
List,
I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John. [9]
[10]
It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian method
in order to uphold one\'s own a priori principles. [11]
But only at the price of disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what
has been written by the authority. [12]
[13]
As my mother used to say: One sees the sliver in the eye of the
other, but not the girder in ones own eye. [14]
That\'s the moment dialogue gets a nasty taste. [15]
[16]
Regards, [17]
Auke [18]
[19]
[20]
Virus-free. www.avg.com [21]
-----------------------------
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 .
[22]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#attend
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[4] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[5]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[6]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[7]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[8]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[9]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[10]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[11]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[12]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[13]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[14]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[15]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[16]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[17]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[18]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[19]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[20]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[21]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[22]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
-----------------------------
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 .
