|
Jean-Marc, List, I suppose that one is permitted one additional word after he has granted his opponent the *last word* in a matter, but only if he might want to confirm something his interlocutor has said and where he has come to see that he was wrong. Jean-Marc wrote: my comments have been no match with the level of your insults, Gary.I apologize. There is truly no excuse for this sort of behavior. It is frustrating, however, to expect (at least ones idea of) a kind of inquiry, a pragmatic one along Peircean lines, and get something else. But, still, that is no reason to act badly, and Jean-Marc you have every reason to repudiate such behavior. So I apologize to you and the list. I only said that writing that there were three things in a triad (a first, a second and a third)Your last post on this topic (after reading my paper) as well as some off-list discussions I've been having with Jim Piat and Ben Udell suggests to me that we are all getting closer in these matters. There is certainly not yet full agreement--and I should add amongst any of us--and Jean-Marc was quite correct to earlier be critical of my suggestion that these were really elementary matters upon which most all were in agreement. That has certainly proven to be anything but the case. is a truism (of course you extrapolated by claiming that I meant that Peirce wrote truisms)No, but I would again like to suggest that a certain passage may stand at least near the key to a breakthrough in understanding (towards, perhaps, a consensus) in this issue. To remind anyone who might be interested, I am referring to: This seems to me to reconcile those two opposed passages which Claudio posted which posited that a sign was a first in one case and a third in another. Of course I've recently been arguing that it is both.CP 1.537 "Now in genuine Thirdness, the first, the second, and the third are all three of the nature of thirds, or thought, while in respect to one another they are first, second, and third"* in genuine Thirdness, the first, the second, and the third are all three of the nature of thirds, or thought" (==genuine thirdness is thought) Also I said that I was appalled by the fact that one can confuse ontological categories with ordinals. It is my right to be appalled.Well, I'm a bit confused about this one, and I'm not certain what you mean by "ontological categories" as to me this inquiry occurs long before metaphysical ones. But since I've behaved so badly, I'd like to "give you" this one, and just add that I am think that both ways of looking at matters may finally been seen to have their validity and value. in response to that you call me all possible names (a chauvinist, a fool, a narrow-minded person, stubborn, one with a short memory...)Well you can't say I called you all possible names. But--and this is going to sound strange in what is really a note of apology--I will run down the litany you parenthetically presented: * chauvinist -- well, yes, I do see you as such in ways, but that this is not really such a bad thing, there's something dynamic, and strong, loyal about it. * fool -- you are no fool, but actually one of the cleverest people I've ever come upon * a narrow-minded person -- well, no more so than I. I hope that we both--we all--come to broaden our horizons, as the English _expression_ has it. * stubborn -- I didn't say that! (Hm, I wonder what Freud would have to say about that? :-) ) * having a short memory -- this is probably not an element, and I have no doubt from your posts that your memory is far superior to min. I will remind you that you started by questioning the validity of the argument that I was defending in a previous mail with a condescending:This is absolutely your strongest point and the consideration of it was a great embarrassment to me. It is incorrect as I noted above in saying that this is "elementary stuff" and that most all agree in the matter. I have apologized to Jim on-list and off, and now I apologize to you Jean-Marc. should I conclude that if one doesn't "see" as you do, one is narrow-minded?Not at all. I some times think that we--at least I-- go through health and learning crises, and when I am very frustrated intellectually, I tend to go into a critical state, become ornery, insulting, and damn near impossible so that--in this far from equilibrium state--I finally reach a bifurcation point (chaos theory) and to either break down or, hopefully, break through to a somewhat higher intellectual structure which entrains these earlier problematic elements into a more evolved structure. Or at least it seems this way. I was certainly concentrated on the sign as _expression_ Firstness. But now I've been reminded by you, Jim, Ben and others (Peirce!) of the thirdness of signs. Not that I haven't always known and said that a sign as participating in thought is a medium, is a third. But one can see--as apparently you do not, and this is where we differ-- that categorially, Peirce says that in one sense, that sign/object/interpretant is a trichotomy, so that sign manifests firstness, object secondness, and interpretant, thirdness. At this point I would be glad to be proved wrong in the matter. But this hasn't happened yet. Now I don't present this here as argument. Not at all--there's no argument in it. But only to say that I think that this is where we differ (as you have recently said that s-o-i are inter-changeable, have no categorial associations--again, this is the sticking point!) also you are at the same insulting everyone who is presenting the same view as I am (i.e. Bernard a few hours ago, R.Marty in 1997 :-) although I doubt he changed his mind since then?, and Andre de Tienne who wrote an article on the elements of the triad).I have a great deal of respect for Bernard and very much appreciate his work as well as his participation on Peirce-l and gdsemiocom. I have had no on or off-list encounters with Robert, but I respect his work and see its value and have recommended it to the list, offering URLs, etc. I will read the article by Andre de Tienne. are all these people narrow-minded too in your opinion? or would you accept the fact that one has a different point of view from yours?No, none of these people are narrow-mnded, and I never thought this for a moment. It may be that they hold a different point of view, but it is also possible that further inquiry will show that all our point of views were *necessary* but in themselves *not sufficient*. Certainly I have come better to see both Firstness and Thirdness as operative in the function and meaning of a sign (especially thanks to CP 1.537 and the cotary challenges of you and others). Thank you. I am perfectly calm.Again, stay that way. Now, Jean-Marc, you may find this a strange addition to a message which is really intended as a apology--and one which I hope you'll accept--but I've decided to attach a photograph of you which I got off the web (is this you?) I will only say that this image argues for you and not in any way the other way. Best, Gary I am indebted to Jim Piat whose off-list remarks have helped me to see the ethical issues involved in this controversy, and who has been the principal catalyst towards my coming to have the courage--and humility--to write this apology (not that he ever suggested that I do anything of the sort!) |
<<attachment: JMO.jpg>>
--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
