John, List: Thanks for confirming the complete absence of any concrete evidence to support the allegations against me, which instead are grounded entirely in transparently uncharitable interpretations of my List posts over the years. The assertion that my "actions speak louder than [my] words" is almost laughable since the only interactions that we have ever had, and likely will ever have, are strictly by means of exchanging words (and occasional illustrations) on our computer screens. With that in mind, let me attempt to settle this matter once and for all.
- I do not claim that my conclusions in general, or my version of semeiotic in particular, are exactly what Peirce intended. My conclusions are *my own*, not Peirce's; and my speculative grammar is *my own*, not Peirce's. Any reading of my posts to the contrary is mistaken. - My objective is not to develop a definitive reconstruction of Peirce's semeiotic, let alone his comprehensive system of thought. Rather, I seek to understand his ideas accurately and formulate *my own* synthesis accordingly. Again, any reading of my posts to the contrary is mistaken. - Nevertheless, I reject as patently absurd the notion that Peirce wrote absolutely nothing that can be taken as definitive. It is possible to distinguish statements that are consistent with his writings from those that are not. In fact, this task is *necessary *for robust scholarship within the community of inquirers. Please interpret my List contributions going forward accordingly and handle any future disagreements by *making better arguments* on the substance, rather than incessantly complaining about my methodology. After all, I am hardly the only List participant who "fight[s] tooth and nail to defend" my views, and at least I have a track record--even if some will never acknowledge it--of being open to well-founded persuasion. From now on, it *will* go without saying for all my posts that they are expressions of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of Peirce's writings. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:39 PM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > The short answer to your question is "Always". I admit that you do not > use those metalevel terms to describe what you're doing, but your actions > speak louder than your words. > > JAS> When have I ever declared that my "conclusion is what Peirce > intended"? > > In every debate, you use your slender thread of quotations as the primary > and sometimes the only criterion for making a decision. You dismiss other > quotations of Peirce as not valid for one reason or another, and you don't > consider the century of work after Peirce as relevant. Peirce insisted on > fallibilism, and his ideas were constantly growing. Note the tentative > tone in his letters to Lady Welby. Note the many versions of his attempts > to write something definitive. His ideas were never static, and he was > constantly debating his positions with himself and his colleagues. > > JAS> When have I ever described my objective as "developing a definitive > reconstruction of Peirce's semeiotic"? > > You don't describe it, but you act as if you have such a reconstruction in > mind. When anybody suggests an alternative that is different from the one > you chose, you fight tooth and nail to defend the one you had been > considering. > > JAS: When have I ever maintained that my "version [of semeiotic] is what > Peirce intended"? > > When you post a barrage of quotations by Peirce that you believe refute > the position that the other person has proposed. You don't accept their > quotations by Peirce, and you don't allow new evidence from more recent > developments that Peirce could not have known. > > As just one example, Peirce preferred the gospel by John the Evangelist > (and so do I). Many theologians believe that there is strong evidence for > the equation Theos = Logos = Dharma = Tao (or Dao). For example, the > translation of the New Testament to Chinese uses 'Dao' as the translation > of 'Logos'. One might quibble with that translation for various reasons. > But to reject it out of hand is inexcusable. > > JAS> John's slides linked below are a good example of this, translating > some of Peirce's ideas into the concepts and terminology of modern logic. > Why is such an approach acceptable for him in a conference presentation, > but not for me in an e-mail list > discussion? Again, *why the double standard? > > Because in mathematics and logic, there is no double standard. There is > one and only one absolutely precise criterion that determines whether or > not two expressions are exact translations of one another: a formal proof. > > Peirce was a mathematician from early childhood and a logician from the > age of 13. For the first-order subset of logic (Alpha and Beta graphs), > Peirce's algebraic notation of 1885 and every version of EGs from 1897 to > the end had formally precise translations to one another. They also had > formally precise translations to and from the FOL subsets of Frege. > Schroeder, Peano, Whitehead, Russell... When I say that two expressions > are formally identical, I am using the same criteria as Peirce and every > logician and mathematician before and after. > > Please read Peirce's low opinion of the reasoning methods of > metaphysicians and his recommendation that they adopt the methods of > mathematics. > > 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 .
