Re: Please Stop (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...)

[Gary Richmond]

Mike, List,

MB: To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina,

GR: You have singled-out the most apposite list members, Mike.

MB: Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1)
attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving
anything?

GR: a.Yes! please stop. I have for months now been asking that this
'harangue' stop.

GR: b. No! for sure this endless harangue is neither attracting new
individuals nor resolving anything. Indeed, I was excited that several new
and returning forum members were offering most intriguing, substantive
posts recently, delighted with the prospect that we might return to the
consideration of matters Peircean with some fresh and even
delightful new insights. Now I fear that if this problem continues that the
forum may not only lose them, but any potential new members who may happen
upon Peirce-L.

GR: To be perfectly clear, in my estimation this horrible 'harangue' began
about a year ago, shortly after John Sowa joined the list and began
harassing Jon Alan Schmidt, not on any *substance* of any of his post, but
on his *methodology*. He has been relentless in this and, frequently
seconded in it by Edwina Taborsky, it has indeed been very destructive of
list culture. JAS, I know, is not about to be intimidated by this
harassment, but it has kept him and others (including me) from having more
substantive and productive exchanges in Peirce-L. For example, I had begun
a post to addressed to our newest member, Michael Mitchell, but found
myself distracted, as I not infrequently have been this past year, by this
nonsense.

MB I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered years ago
with this list, where I could learn and sometimes contribute to an
inspection of Peirce's fecund writings. No longer. If, based on the
evidence of these interchanges

GR: This forum, which I've moderated for a little over 10 years now,
approaching nearly 1/3 of the time it's been in existence, and at the
request of Joe Ransdell as conveyed to *The Peirce Group* before his death,
has this past year become as disturbingly problematic as your message
suggests, Mike. Indeed, in the years in which I have moderated it, it has
never been in such crisis as it is now, as it has *become* during the past
year.

MB:. . . Please stop this destructive behavior.

GR: I agree that it is well past time to "stop this destructive behavior."
For in truth, and I repeat myself for emphasis: *if it continues much
longer it could very well undermine the viability of this forum.*

MB: Despite Gary R telling me offline to resign from the list, I will
continue to monitor.

GR: Let's get this straight, Mike. It is *you* who *first* asked me to
resign as moderator of the list. You wrote me off-list, after, as
moderator, I'd made several requests to John Sowa that this near endless
destructive behavior cease, and especially as it pertained to
the outrageous and nearly constant attacks on Jon Alan Schmidt by him. So,
Mike, it was *you* who originally wrote me off list to say that it was
"perhaps time for [me] to resign as moderator." And why? Because I was
striving to do exactly what you are asking in this post, that is
requesting, imploring, that this madness stop. I responded that if you
thought that my fervent desire and repeated attempt to stop this ugly
behavior on list was reason for me to resign as moderator, then perhaps
you'd misunderstood the purpose, culture, and ethics of the Peirce forum.
If *that* was the case, then it was *you *who should consider leaving the
forum. For I would continue to assert the right of every member of the
forum to participate without being harassed.

MB: I am curious to see if the human animal has the capacity to learn and
grow. Evidence based on the way this list is going does not instill
optimism.

GR: If we were not impeded to pursue inquiry in this forum as we have been
for nearly thirty years (save this last year), I think that the "capacity
to learn and grow," especially informed by the work of Peirce, can and
would grow. How much potential intellectual creative energy has been lost
here this past year.

After Joe Ransdell's death over 10 years ago, I was contacted by *The
Peirce Group* (TPG). I was told that Joe had requested that I be asked to
succeed him as moderator of Peirce-L I was, well, dumbfounded and awed and,
frankly, more than a little intimidated by the prospect. After all, Joe was
a Peirce scholar of international renown, while I had then written very
little on Peirce that had been published. But I was assured that Joe
completely trusted (from our on and off-list discussions, etc.) that I
would be fair and generous in my dealings with list members, that I was
humble enough, willing to see when I was wrong, to apologize when
necessary, but strong enough to assert the values of Peirce-L as he
established them. And I fully agreed with his *democratic approach to
inquiry* in this forum as he well knew.

I cannot tell you how s

Please Stop (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...)

[Mike Bergman]

To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina,

Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1) 
attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving 
anything? I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered 
years ago with this list, where I could learn and sometimes contribute 
to an inspection of Peirce's fecund writings. No longer. If, based on 
the evidence of these interchanges, I hear more about charity or grace 
or whatever you want to call it, I will puke. Please stop this 
destructive behavior.


Despite Gary R telling me offline to resign from the list, I will 
continue to monitor. I am curious to see if the human animal has the 
capacity to learn and grow. Evidence based on the way this list is going 
does not instill optimism.


Mike

On 5/14/2020 8:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:

John, List:

Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of 
Gary R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been 
repeatedly and falsely accused.  I sincerely hope that a retraction 
and an apology will be forthcoming accordingly.


JFS:  Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to
arrive at an overall interpretation of [his own] thought".  No
Peircean scholar or committee of scholars would attempt to do
that.  If Peirce himself couldn't do that, it's the height of
hubris for anybody else to claim that they could.


This is utter nonsense. /Many /Peircean scholars have attempted to do 
that, not out of hubris but out of a sincere (even humble) desire to 
learn from Peirce's writings and then help others do likewise.  As I 
have said before, that is precisely why there is such a vast secondary 
literature--including books like Kelly A. Parker's /The Continuity of 
Peirce's Thought/, which was my own initial introduction to the 
subject matter.  Its back cover explicitly calls it "A comprehensive 
and systematic reconstruction of the philosophy of Charles S. 
Peirce--perhaps America's most far-ranging and original 
philosopher--that reveals the unity of his complex and influential 
body of thought." This is followed by two accompanying quotes.


Joseph Brent:  In spite of the difficult complexity of its
subject, Kelly Parker's ambitious work is remarkably clear and
readable and is indispensable for an understanding of the
evolution of Peirce's thinking.

Nathan Houser:  I know of no better introduction to Pierce. 
Parker's book is the first to present Peirce's philosophy fully
and systematically following Peirce's own system.  This is a
stimulating work that should engage even the most sophisticated
Peirce scholar.


These kinds of claims are not only unobjectionable, they are /routine 
/in mainstream philosophical scholarship.  If no one could ever say 
anything /new /about Peirce, then no one would ever have much to say 
/at all/ about Peirce.


JFS:  For my own writings, I have *never* seen any
paraphrase--favorable or unfavorable--that I would consider accurate.


Thanks for confirming that the attribution of such a sentiment to 
Peirce is nothing more than a projection of one's own feelings.  Is it 
reasonable to expect others to /memorize /what we have written, and 
then do nothing more than repeat it back verbatim?  On the contrary, 
if no readers can accurately restate it in /their own/ words, then 
that strikes me as strong evidence of a complete failure by the author 
to communicate his/her ideas successfully.


JFS:  That is human charity, not mathematical charity.


Who said anything about "mathematical charity"?  Charity is charity, 
regardless of the context--putting the best construction on 
everything, and conscientiously exhibiting generosity of attitude.


Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 


On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:01 PM John F. Sowa > wrote:


Jon, et al.

I just want to emphasize one point:  It's extremely rare for
anybody to approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or
paraphrase of what they said or wrote.  If it's highly favorable,
they probably won't complain.  But even then, they realize that
the paraphrase is not what they themselves would have said.

JAS> The debates are rarely about there being only one "right"
interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether
and how we can integrate different passages to arrive at an
overall interpretation of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our
own words rather than his.

No!!!  Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to
arrive at an overall interpretation of [his own] thought".  No
Peircean scholar or committee of scholars would attempt to do
   

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of Gary
R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been repeatedly
and falsely accused.  I sincerely hope that a retraction and an apology
will be forthcoming accordingly.

JFS:  Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at an
overall interpretation of [his own] thought".  No Peircean scholar or
committee of scholars would attempt to do that.  If Peirce himself couldn't
do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they
could.


This is utter nonsense.  *Many *Peircean scholars have attempted to do
that, not out of hubris but out of a sincere (even humble) desire to learn
from Peirce's writings and then help others do likewise.  As I have said
before, that is precisely why there is such a vast secondary
literature--including books like Kelly A. Parker's *The Continuity of
Peirce's Thought*, which was my own initial introduction to the subject
matter.  Its back cover explicitly calls it "A comprehensive and systematic
reconstruction of the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce--perhaps America's
most far-ranging and original philosopher--that reveals the unity of his
complex and influential body of thought."  This is followed by two
accompanying quotes.

Joseph Brent:  In spite of the difficult complexity of its subject, Kelly
Parker's ambitious work is remarkably clear and readable and is
indispensable for an understanding of the evolution of Peirce's thinking.

Nathan Houser:  I know of no better introduction to Pierce.  Parker's book
is the first to present Peirce's philosophy fully and systematically
following Peirce's own system.  This is a stimulating work that should
engage even the most sophisticated Peirce scholar.


These kinds of claims are not only unobjectionable, they are *routine *in
mainstream philosophical scholarship.  If no one could ever say anything *new
*about Peirce, then no one would ever have much to say *at all* about
Peirce.

JFS:  For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase--favorable or
unfavorable--that I would consider accurate.


Thanks for confirming that the attribution of such a sentiment to Peirce is
nothing more than a projection of one's own feelings.  Is it reasonable to
expect others to *memorize *what we have written, and then do nothing more
than repeat it back verbatim?  On the contrary, if no readers can
accurately restate it in *their own* words, then that strikes me as strong
evidence of a complete failure by the author to communicate his/her ideas
successfully.

JFS:  That is human charity, not mathematical charity.


Who said anything about "mathematical charity"?  Charity is charity,
regardless of the context--putting the best construction on everything, and
conscientiously exhibiting generosity of attitude.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:01 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Jon, et al.
>
> I just want to emphasize one point:  It's extremely rare for anybody to
> approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or paraphrase of what
> they said or wrote.  If it's highly favorable, they probably won't
> complain.  But even then, they realize that the paraphrase is not what they
> themselves would have said.
>
> JAS> The debates are rarely about there being only one "right"
> interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether and how
> we can integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation
> of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our own words rather than his.
>
> No!!!  Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at an
> overall interpretation of [his own] thought".  No Peircean scholar or
> committee of scholars would attempt to do that.  If Peirce himself couldn't
> do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they
> could.
>
> Note:  I am not complaining about what you write -- provided that you
> state it as your own opinion.  But I strongly object to any claim by
> anybody that they could do what Peirce himself could never accomplish.
>
> JAS> John Sowa recently claimed
>  that
> "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his
> thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this projection of
> his own feelings onto Peirce.
>
> If you want to see people cringe at a paraphrase, just watch children
> cringe when their parents try to repeat what they said on some previous
> occasion.
>
>  As for Peirce,  I'll turn the question around.  Can you find any
> paraphrase that Peirce approved?Look at his reviews of writings by
> William James or Ernst Schröder.  Or note they way he introduced the word
> 'pragmaticism'.
>
> For more examples in ordinary language, look at any email debates on any

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[John F. Sowa]

Jon, et al.
I just want to emphasize one point:  It's extremely
rare for anybody to approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or
paraphrase of what they said or wrote.  If it's highly favorable, they
probably won't complain.  But even then, they realize that the paraphrase
is not what they themselves would have said.
JAS> The debates are rarely about there being
only one "right" interpretation of only one particular passage, but
rather whether and how we can integrate different passages to arrive at
an overall interpretation of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our own
 words rather than his.
No!!!  Even Peirce could not
"integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation
of [his own] thought".  No Peircean scholar or committee of scholars
would attempt to do that.  If Peirce himself couldn't do that, it's the
height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they could.
Note: 
I am not complaining about what you write -- provided that you state it
as your own opinion.  But I strongly object to any claim by anybody that
they could do what Peirce himself could never accomplish.
JAS> John Sowa recently claimed
 that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase
his thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this
projection of his own feelings onto Peirce.
If you want to
see people cringe at a paraphrase, just watch children cringe when their
parents try to repeat what they said on some previous occasion.
 As
for Peirce,  I'll turn the question around.  Can you find any paraphrase
that Peirce approved?    Look at his reviews of writings by William James
or Ernst Schröder.  Or note they way he introduced the word
'pragmaticism'.
For more examples in ordinary language, look at any
email debates on any list or blog on any subject:  Few, if any people,
fully agree with any paraphrase of what they said. Sometimes, they might
admit that the other person made a clearer or better statement on the same
topic.  But an improvement is not an exact paraphrase.
For my own
writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase -- favorable or unfavorable
-- that I would consider accurate.  Some of them are worse than others. 
But even the favorable comments are not exact.As for Peirce, his
background and knowledge were unique.  Even the best Peircean scholars
can't write a truly accurate paraphrase of anything he wrote.  I would
never attempt to do that.
But every mathematician, including Peirce,
recognizes that mathematical derivations are guaranteed to absolutely
precise or completely false.  If anybody derives a conclusion from some
proposition p in formal math or logic, the original authors will accept
any statement derived from p -- *provided that* the derivation correctly
follows the rules of inference for that notation. 
In mathematics,
every derivation is either exactly correct or exactly false.  There is no
room for charity.  But a good teacher can be charitable by being
sympathetic and helpful in showing students how to correct and avoid
mistakes.   That is human charity, not mathematical
charity.
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



Thank you for this great demonstration of ‘*charity*’.

We have shown ourselves to be a learned person who can define a concept
perfectly.

For who can’t recognize an example when it’s on the table in front of them?



Best,

Jerry R

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

>
> JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly self-defines
> yourself as very particular about exact references - 'selected' from what I
> wrote - which thereby changed the meaning - and declared that I wrote:
>
> 1] "  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' "
>
> But I did not say the above.
>
> I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one
> substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant exercise'.
> Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did you change my words?
> Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert 'theorizing'?
>
> 2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' .
> Where did I say this???
>
> Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was:
>
> "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing against
> them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the actual
> world - to explain this real world?
>
> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
> from the real empirical objective world."
>
> 3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a theory can
> be applied, functionally, to explain the real world.
>
> But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but
> integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out
> phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly present
> someone's comments. Why did you do this?
>
> Edwina
>
>
> On Thu 14/05/20 4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
> about it.
>
>
> Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links
> to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete
> contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always include the
> CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with everything that I quote
> from Peirce.
>
> ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few
> phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
>
>
> Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the portions
> that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill up an
> e-mail with lengthy excerpts?
>
> ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
> provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
> situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
> that I am against theories or theorizing.
>
>
> First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples, please.
>
> Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure
> sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include "how
> these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real
> world."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> JAS
>>
>> You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about
>> it.
>>
>> I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
>> against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore this
>> fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me that you
>> used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did
>> you do so?
>>
>> EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
>> arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations
>> in the actual world - to explain this real world?
>>
>> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
>> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
>> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
>> from the real empirical objective world."
>>
>> 
>>
>> My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
>> against theories and theorizing;
>>
>> My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider
>> that  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
>> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the semin

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly
self-defines yourself as very particular about exact references -
'selected' from what I wrote - which thereby changed the meaning -
and declared that I wrote:

1] "  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by
people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room' "

But I did not say the above.

I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one
substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant
exercise'.  Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did
you change my words? Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert
'theorizing'?

2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room' .  Where did I say this???

Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was:

"As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing
against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in
the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."

3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a
theory can be applied, functionally, to explain the real world. 

But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but
integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out
phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly
present someone's comments. Why did you do this?

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading
comments about it. 
 Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided
links to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see
the complete contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always
include the CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with
everything that I quote from Peirce. 
 ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a
few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
 Again, I provided links to the original posts and  only quoted the
portions that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill
up an e-mail with lengthy excerpts?
 ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. 
 First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples,
please.
 Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure
sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include
"how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in
the real world." 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
 On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS 

You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it. 

I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore
this fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me
that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the
totality. Why did you do so? 
EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real
situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." 



My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
against theories and theorizing;  

My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider that
 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room'  

Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST
theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing
is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please
stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning comple

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it.


Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links
to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete
contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always include the
CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with everything that I quote
from Peirce.

ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few
phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?


Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the portions
that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill up an
e-mail with lengthy excerpts?

ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
that I am against theories or theorizing.


First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples, please.

Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure sounds
to me like a *demand *that any and all theorizing *must *include "how these
theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real world."

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS
>
> You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about
> it.
>
> I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was against
> their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore this fact and
> present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me that you used - you
> selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
>
> EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing
> against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the
> actual world - to explain this real world?
>
> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
> from the real empirical objective world."
>
> 
>
> My comments above are very different from your statement that I am against
> theories and theorizing;
>
> My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider
> that  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'
>
> Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST theories
> or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing is 'undertaken
> only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please stop picking out
> bits and pieces and making my meaning completely different.
>
>  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
> provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
> situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
> that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles me why you stick so
> tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite my actual words!
>
> Edwina
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS

1] You write - 'thanks for acknowledging this '- as if I ever
rejected such a view!

2] Yes - I know that you reject my view of the Sign as a triad -
made up of the O-R-I.  As to who is more accurate - that's an
opinion. ..since I don't see that your insistence on terminology
clarifies with HOW this triad, as a semiosic process, actually works.
I disagree, for example, with your insertion of the FI before the
others - but- that's another issue. 

3] I don't agree that your textual references to 'sign' and
'representamen' provides any insight into HOW this triadic process
actually functions. That is - I continue to see your concern as
terminological rather than analytic. 

4] You just wrote a post where you said that I said: 

 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people
who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room' 

Even though - this is NOT what I wrote!

5] It's hardly a generous attitude to suggest to me that I continue
with my focus on the 'practical application of theory'. While others
get on with their quite different work ]pure theorizing]. That's
hardly the function of a discussion list - where we each 'get on with
our own isolate agenda, so to speak' rather than dialogue with each
other. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask someone who is working on
theory: How does this theory function to explain the actual world???

6] Pragmatism can hardly be confined to only one section/branch of
Peirce's work.

7] And I don't see why it is offensive to ask that a theory show how
it can be functional in the real world.

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  4:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET:  I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both
valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are
more valid and accurate and truthful than others.
 Thanks for acknowledging this.  As an example, in my view it is an
invalid and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for
"the triad" and "representamen" for its "median node," rather than
treating these terms as synonyms for the first correlate of the
genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating.  The only
alternative consistent with his writings is to use "sign" for "a
Representamen of which some Interpretant is a cognition of a mind"
(CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a Representamen with a mental
interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but he ultimately decided
that "there was no need of this horrid long word" because "sign" is
"a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in
almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). 
 ET:  Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts?
 Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for
supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular
interpretation.  As I recently  stated [1], "'Constant references to
the text' are a valid inductive method for testing hypotheses about
the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views of the author
as expressed in the text."  For the example above, I provide three
quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's
careful definitions of both "sign" and "representamen."   Again [2],
I do not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I
believe that it has important conceptual ramifications.
 ET:  In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' -
when I have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! 
 Where has anyone done this?  Specific examples, please.
 On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude,
Gary R. stated , "Edwina, please do proceed with what you consider to
be the kind of inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most
important (or however you conceive of it) on this list and off, your
particular 'practical application' of theory emphasis certainly being
valuable and important."  On the other hand, those of us who tend to
focus more on theory have very recently had such efforts summarily 
dismissed as "an irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned as
"prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar
room'."  As Gary R.  concluded, "I implore you and every list member
to simply get on with her or his work and let others with different
interests get on with theirs. That is all."
  ET:  Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where
his pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg,
speculative grammar! 
 Where has anyone said this?  Specific examples, please.
 On the contrary, Gary R. simply  observed that pragmatism per se--as
"merely a method of ascertaining the me

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

JFS:  For these reasons, what triggered this thread is not what Jon wrote,
but what Gary R wrote ... But when he made a blanket statement about my
competence,that was out of bounds.


Again, where did Gary R. make any such "blanket statement"?  Please provide
a quotation, preferably including a link to the specific post in the
archive, or issue a retraction and an apology.  Failure to do so will
constitute admission that this is a baseless allegation.

JFS:  There are some areas for which Peirce depended very heavily on math
and logic. ... For topics that touch on those areas, someone who is not
attentive to the mathematical issues may be misled.  When I read comments
that ignore those issues, I say so.


Whether Peirce depended heavily on math and logic for a particular area is
a matter of interpretation and opinion.  Which topics touch on those areas
is a matter of interpretation and opinion.  Whether someone is adequately
attentive to mathematical issues is a matter of interpretation and
opinion.  No one has jurisdiction to make authoritative pronouncements
about such matters.  Where there is disagreement, make a better argument.

JFS:  Re principle of charity:  That is necessary for interpreting
philosophers who are not able to speak for themselves -- either because
they are dead or merely because they are not present in the discussion.


The Wikipedia article 
makes no reference whatsoever to whether the person being interpreted is
able to speak for himself/herself.  In fact, it repeatedly refers to a
"speaker," rather than an author, implying that the principle of
charity *directly
*applies when he/she *is *speaking for himself/herself.  Luther's
formulation of "putting the best construction on everything" likewise makes
no such distinction, since it is primarily intended for everyday
situations.  Joe Ransdell's plea for "generosity of attitude" certainly
pertains to *all *of us in *every *on-List exchange.

JFS:  But I also know that Gary is not a mathemtician,and he has a tendency
to downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's philosophy.


In my own experience, Gary R. does not "downplay the influence of
mathematics on Peirce's philosophy," but rather seeks to balance it with
other valid considerations.  For example, in our extensive off-List
discussions about Peirce's philosophy of time, he (and also Gary F.) very
helpfully emphasized its phenomenological aspects, which served as a
necessary check on my own much more mathematical and logical bent.

We all have a natural tendency to interpret others (including Peirce)
through our peculiar lenses that have been shaped by different collateral
experience and different habits of interpretation.  Generosity of attitude
includes recognizing the validity of others' perspectives, ideally
resulting in *shared* inquiry that takes them into account rather than
remaining narrowly oriented.  To be clear, I am directing this exhortation
at myself as much as anyone else.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:10 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Jon, Michael, Edwina, Robert M, and Gary R,
>
> Peirce's range of interests, talents, and research was so broad that there
> is no single best method for studying and interpreting his writings.  For
> different aspects of his work, some methods are better than others.   But
> even for those areas where one method may be dominant, other methods may
> also be appropriate for certain aspects.
>
> For these reasons, what triggered this thread is not what Jon wrote, but
> what Gary R wrote.As moderator, he's supposed to moderate.  He has the
> right to state his opinions about any issue.,   But when he made a blanket
> statement about my competence, that was out of bounds.
>
> There are some areas for which Peirce depended very heavily on math and
> logic.  The four volumes of NEM are prime examples.  But there are also
> many topics in CP, EP, and W for which mathematics is essential for
> understanding the nuances.  For topics that touch on those areas, someone
> who is not attentive to the mathematical issues may be misled.  When I read
> comments that ignore those issues, I say so.
>
> Re principle of charity:  That is necessary for interpreting philosophers
> who are not able to speak for themselves -- either because they are dead or
> merely because they are not present in the discussion.  But if they are
> present, they can speak for themselves about any misunderstanding.
>
> I've known Gary R for years, and we've always been  quite friendly.  But I
> also know that Gary is not a mathemtician, and he has a tendency to
> downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's philosophy.  I would not
> object to some criticism of  an issue in which I emphasize the importance
> of mathematics and form

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both valid and
necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are more valid and
accurate and truthful than others.


Thanks for acknowledging this.  As an example, in my view it is an invalid
and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node," rather than treating these terms as
synonyms for the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of
representing or mediating.  The only alternative consistent with his
writings is to use "sign" for "a Representamen of which some Interpretant
is a cognition of a mind" (CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a
Representamen with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but
he ultimately decided that "there was no need of this horrid long word"
because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very
broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193,
1905).

ET:  Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce
by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts?


Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for
supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular interpretation.  As
I recently stated
,
"'Constant references to the text' are a valid inductive method for testing
hypotheses *about *the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views
of the author as *expressed *in the text."  For the example above, I
provide three quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's careful
definitions of both "sign" and "representamen."  Again
, I do
not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I believe
that it has important conceptual ramifications.

ET:  In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I
have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'!


Where has anyone done this?  Specific examples, please.

On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude, Gary R.
stated ,
"Edwina, please *do *proceed with what *you *consider to be the kind of
inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most important (or however
you conceive of it) on this list and off, your particular 'practical
application' of theory emphasis certainly being valuable and important."
On the other hand, those of us who tend to focus more on theory have very
recently had such efforts summarily dismissed
 as "an
irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned
 as
"prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar
room'."  As Gary R. concluded
, "I
implore you and every list member to simply get on with her or his work and
let others with different interests get on with theirs. That is all."

ET:  Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar!


Where has anyone said this?  Specific examples, please.

On the contrary, Gary R. simply observed
 that
pragmatism *per se*--as "merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of
hard words and of abstract concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400, 1907)--falls
under the third branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic,
which is speculative rhetoric or methodeutic.  Consequently, *in itself*
pragmatism is primarily a matter of theory, but Peirce himself immediately
adds, "As to the ulterior and indirect effects of practicing the
pragmatistic method, that is quite another affair" (ibid).  The same is
true of speculative grammar and all the other branches of philosophy.

ET:  What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly valid
comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To Theory.


This goes both ways.  What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere,
where a focus on theory, such as mine, is not met with the defensive tactic
of "Get Out of the Seminar Room" or "Stop Paraphrasing Peirce."

ET:  So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation.


Indeed, as long as that goes for *all *of us.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS 

You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it. 

I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore
this fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me
that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the
totality. Why did you do so? 
EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real
situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."



My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
against theories and theorizing;  

My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider that
 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room'  

Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST
theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing
is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please
stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning completely
different.

 I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles
me why you stick so tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite
my actual words!

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  3:50 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 John, List:
 JFS:  The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author
are true.
  Where have I claimed otherwise?  Specific examples, please.
 JFS:  For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
interpretation of what Peirce wrote led to a conclusion that was
different from a charitable interpretation of what you wrote. 
 Different readers can and often do disagree about what constitutes a
charitable interpretation of someone else's writings.  Naturally, a
different interpretation of what Peirce wrote leads to a different
conclusion, and the burden is then to support one's own
interpretation (or refute someone else's) with arguments.  That is
one reason why the secondary literature has become so extensive.
 JAS:  We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make
sweeping judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding
Peirce's writings and discussing them intelligently.  We (apparently)
disagree about who among us has been guilty of doing exactly that. 
 JFS:  I never said that you were incapable of understanding Peirce.
 It is not about me individually, it is about "sweeping judgments"
like the following.
 JFS [1]:  You cannot understand anything Peirce wrote unless you
repeat the kind of disciplined testing that he did in developing and
revising his theories.
  JFS [2]:  As Peirce said, it's indeed wonderful that different
people have very different ways of thinking.  But in order to
understand any of them, we must recognize their background in order
to understand how and why they came to their conclusions.
  While certain kinds of experiences and familiarity with Peirce's
biography are certainly helpful for understanding his writings,
absolute statements like these set an unreasonably high bar that no
one has the authority to impose on others.  Rather than dismissing
someone else's interpretations because of who is giving them, the
appropriate response when there is disagreement is to make a better
argument. 
 JFS:  A list moderator has a right to admonish participants about
making inappropriate statements.  But a moderator has an obligation
to quote the statement(s) explicitly and state exactly why they are
inappropriate.
 Gary R.  did [3] exactly that regarding Edwina\'s [4] comments [5]
that theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people
who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room' ... far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." 
 JFS:  But Gary R made a blanket statement about my ability to
interpret Peirce without stating a single example where my statement
was wrong or inappropriate.  He also made a blanket statement that
your arguments were superior to mine.
  Where has Gary R. made any such "blanket statements"?  Specific
examples, please.
 JFS:  On several occasions, he said that he agreed with you and not
wit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Michael, List:

MM:  I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a
result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method.  Also that a
similar situation has recurred before.


John Sowa and I have had fundamental disagreements about methodology for
well over a year now, unfortunately resulting in multiple contentious
exchanges during that time.

MM:  But that doesn't mean that there is a flaw in his overall method per
se.


Exactly; as I keep saying, the proper response by anyone who disagrees with
my conclusions is to make a better argument, rather than just complaining
about my approach.

MM:  Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact
reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your arguments
in each case, given these are held on server specially for our continued
reference.


I am not going to track down and rehash those past disputes, which were
sadly effective distractions from the topics at hand.  I would strongly
prefer to move forward with substantive discussions instead.

MM:  Now the method of JAS is to pull elements from diverse contexts within
CSP's oeuvre, and then list members express differences in view regarding
the intermeshing of the charitable interpretations of the diverse elements.


I believe that John Sowa greatly overstates the degree to which I allegedly
offer quotes out of context.  In any case, it is not feasible to include
large excerpts in an e-mail discussion, and if someone believes that I am
misusing a particular quote, then that person has the burden of *demonstrating
*that my interpretation is unwarranted by the original context--i.e.,
making a better argument.

MM:  But what is wrong with several such viewpoints?  They add to each
other and don't detract.  None of them has to knock out the others, as if
it was the Wimbledon Tournament.


The debates are rarely about there being only one "right" interpretation of
only one particular passage, but rather whether and how we can integrate
different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation of Peirce's
thought, usually stated in our own words rather than his.  John Sowa
recently claimed
 that
"Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his
thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this projection of
his own feelings onto Peirce.

MM:  I suspect, since CSP was inclined to talk about "the universe and
everything", his points do interrelate (in his own mind), but since he
himself struggled in expression, everlasting discussion is essential.


This is an important point.  While Peirce was a good writer, my sense is
likewise that he sometimes had trouble conveying his ideas in ways that he
considered satisfactory.  With that in mind, in my view there is nothing
inappropriate about making connections between them that he himself did not
happen to highlight.  The secondary literature abounds with such plausible
conjectures.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:19 AM  wrote:

> John, Gary,
>
> I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a result,
> on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method.  Also that a similar
> situation has recurred before.  But that doesn't mean that there is a flaw
> in his overall method per se.
>
> I'm inferring this from recent comments by participants to this topic.  I
> think both you and JAS should carry on in your underlying methods as such.
>
> Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact
> reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your arguments
> in each case, given these are held on server specially for our continued
> reference.
>
> In natural language we point out, say, "method of JAS" and then again,
> "result from instance of application by JAS of method of JAS".  The string
> of items in the latter phrase constitute context of occurrence but not a
> watertight causal string.
>
> Now the method of JAS is to pull elements from diverse contexts within
> CSP's oeuvre, and then list members express differences in view regarding
> the intermeshing of the charitable interpretations of the diverse
> elements.  But what is wrong with several such viewpoints?  They add to
> each other and don't detract.  None of them has to knock out the others, as
> if it was the Wimbledon Tournament.  Would to do so, be excessive
> application of excluded middle or non-contradiction?  Slightly too binary?
>
> While we have a class of instances and while such a class is a universal,
> and a concrete in CSP's terms (because generalities are observed in the
> imagination), that doesn't provide us with a rule as to either the quality
> of argument in each instance within the class, nor the range of
> applications of the origina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

JFS:  The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author are
true.


Where have I claimed otherwise?  Specific examples, please.

JFS:  For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
interpretation of what Peirce wrote led to a conclusion that was different
from a charitable interpretation of what you wrote.


Different readers can and often do disagree about what constitutes a
charitable interpretation of someone else's writings.  Naturally, a
*different* interpretation of what Peirce wrote leads to a different
conclusion, and the burden is then to *support *one's own interpretation
(or refute someone else's) with arguments.  That is one reason why the
secondary literature has become so extensive.

JAS:  We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make sweeping
judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding Peirce's
writings and discussing them intelligently.  We (apparently) disagree about
who among us has been guilty of doing exactly that.

JFS:  I never said that you were incapable of understanding Peirce.


It is not about me individually, it is about "sweeping judgments" like the
following.

JFS :  You
cannot understand anything Peirce wrote unless you repeat the kind of
disciplined testing that he did in developing and revising his theories.

JFS :  As
Peirce said, it's indeed wonderful that different people have very
different ways of thinking.  But in order to understand any of them, we
must recognize their background in order to understand how and why they
came to their conclusions.


While certain kinds of experiences and familiarity with Peirce's biography
are certainly *helpful *for understanding his writings, absolute statements
like these set an unreasonably high bar that no one has the authority to
impose on others.  Rather than dismissing someone else's interpretations
because of *who* is giving them, the appropriate response when there is
disagreement is to make a better argument.

JFS:  A list moderator has a right to admonish participants about making
inappropriate statements.  But a moderator has an obligation to quote the
statement(s) explicitly and state exactly why they are inappropriate.


Gary R. did
 exactly
that regarding Edwina's
 comments

that theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'
... far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."

JFS:  But Gary R made a blanket statement about my ability to interpret
Peirce without stating a single example where my statement was wrong or
inappropriate.  He also made a blanket statement that your arguments were
superior to mine.


Where has Gary R. made any such "blanket statements"?  Specific examples,
please.

JFS:  On several occasions, he said that he agreed with you and not with
me.  But he never explained why any particular point I made was wrong.


Presumably he agreed not only with my conclusions, but also with the
reasoning behind them, which I had already presented.  Merely saying that
one agrees with someone else does not impose an obligation to restate that
person's arguments.

JFS:  But Gary R stepped way out of bounds when he made a blanket
condemnation of my writings without ever showing a single example that was
inappropriate.


Again, where has Gary R. made any such "blanket condemnation"?  Again,
specific examples, please.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:09 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Jon,
>
> The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
> listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author are
> true.  Its only requirement is to assume that other participants in the
> discussion are rational human beings who are making meaningful statements,
> which they have some reason to believe are true.  But charity does not
> require the listener to agree that they are true.  Note the passage you
> quoted:
>
> Wikipedia> In philosophy and rhetoric, the *principle of charity* or 
> *charitable
> interpretation* requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most
> rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its
> best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal
> of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality,
> logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a
> coherent, rational interpreta

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[John F. Sowa]

Jon, Michael, Edwina, Robert M, and Gary R,
Peirce's range of
interests, talents, and research was so broad that there is no single best
method for studying and interpreting his writings.  For different aspects
of his work, some methods are better than others.   But even for those
areas where one method may be dominant, other methods may also be
appropriate for certain aspects.
For these reasons, what triggered
this thread is not what Jon wrote, but what Gary R wrote.    As moderator,
he's supposed to moderate.  He has the right to state his opinions about
any issue.,   But when he made a blanket statement about my competence,
that was out of bounds. 
There are some areas for which Peirce
depended very heavily on math and logic.  The four volumes of NEM are
prime examples.  But there are also many topics in CP, EP, and W for which
mathematics is essential for understanding the nuances.  For topics that
touch on those areas, someone who is not attentive to the mathematical
issues may be misled.  When I read comments that ignore those issues, I
say so.
Re principle of charity:  That is necessary for interpreting
philosophers who are not able to speak for themselves -- either because
they are dead or merely because they are not present in the discussion. 
But if they are present, they can speak for themselves about any
misunderstanding.
I've known Gary R for years, and we've always
been  quite friendly.  But I also know that Gary is not a mathemtician,
and he has a tendency to downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's
philosophy.  I would not object to some criticism of  an issue in which I
emphasize the importance of mathematics and formal logic.  I would  then
accept the burden of proof to show that math is indeed important for that
particular topic.  I've done that in some cases, and I'll continue to do
so.
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Essay about categories and logical presuppositions

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 20
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/14/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-20/

Peircers,

Understanding another person's thought can be difficult.  Understanding the way another understands a third person's 
thought, all the more so, even if that third person is not so formidable a thinker as Charles Sanders Peirce.  Measures 
of misunderstanding may be moderated if all thoughts and thinkers are guided by common objectives but the proof of the 
pudding is in the partaking, as they say.  So let's step carefully and focus on the task of determining whether category 
theories, old and new, make good tools for understanding sign relations.


http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif

The interaction recorded in my last post
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/13/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-19/
continued as follows:

• Peirce List ( 
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/thrd2.html#3 )

 RM:
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00061.html

I do not see how we can talk here about an operative relationship that would be a triad relationship.  It is not 
anything other than the composition of two morphisms and I do not ask for more.  3, 2, and 1 are the “place names” and 
“involves” are arrow names that I usually call alpha and beta.  Now if you think about the determinations in the sign, I 
have always assumed after much study of the 76 definitions, this idea that the composition of applications captures the 
presence in the mind of each of the elements of the sign, in such a way that they are themselves ipso facto connected by 
a triadic relationship.  There is a relationship of tricoexistence that is established as in this case evoked by Peirce: 
 “It predicates the genuinely Triadic relationship of tricoexistence, P and Q and R coexist” (CP 2.318, unfortunately 
there is a hole in my PDF of CP right after and I [left] my paper edition at the library of my university, inaccessible 
at the moment).


We have a mutual incomprehension?


 JA:
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00072.html

I don't often join the debates over sign classification so frequently animating the animadversions of the Peirce List. 
As more the observer than the participant I see the same pattern over and over, with occasional hints but never any hue 
of resolution fast enough to last and satisfy every dyehard.


Situations of that sort are no novelty in philosophy, or politics, or even math and science on occasion.  And when they 
occur it is usually because the “place to stand” from which the subject appears in its proper light has yet to be 
reached by every viewer.


So I'll back up a little and say how I see things from where I am.


Resources
=

• Precursors Of Category Theory
https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory

• Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%e2%80%a2-1/

Regards,

Jon

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.

That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??

I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some
are more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon
does exist!

 I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection
of diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in
focus...It would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in
focus - ie, moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such
as AI, physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem. 

I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?

 Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That -
after all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly
exhausts the reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It
certainly seems reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so
to speak. But- is this an actual argument and does this method include
understanding?

Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so
on... These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found
wherever mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure
and exempt. 

Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information
and cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for
example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said
that. My view is that theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty
unless expressed within the actualities of the real world of 2ns.
That is - theories must be examined as to whether they actually,
truthfully, represent and inform us about the real world. Theories
can't survive on logic alone.  But - despite my repeated assertions
of this view - I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! That's a neat
defensive tactic, using Tenacity,  to not deal with my concern!

Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar! 

I certainly don't want a 'charitable interpretation' of my position
- leading to the misinterpretation on this list that I am
anti-theorist. Nor do I want relativism where 'anything goes' and we
assume we are all really OK guys. 

What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a  switch of my frankly
valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To
Theory. That doesn't solve the issue. It just kicks the can out the
door, so to speak. But it's still there..albeit rusty and distant.

So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation. 

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  7:19 AM , michael...@waitrose.com sent:
 John, Gary, 
 I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a  
 result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method.  Also that
a  
 similar situation has recurred before.  But that doesn't mean that
there  
 is a flaw in his overall method per se. 
 I'm inferring this from recent comments by participants to this
topic.   
 I think both you and JAS should carry on in your underlying methods
as  
 such. 
 Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact
 
 reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your  
 arguments in each case, given these are held on server specially for
our  
 continued reference. 
 In natural language we point out, say, "method of JAS" and then
again,  
 "result from instance of application by JAS of method of JAS".  The 

 string of items in the latter phrase constitute context of
occurrence  
 but not a watertight causal string. 
 Now the method of JAS is to 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[michaelcjm]

John, Gary,

I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a 
result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method.  Also that a 
similar situation has recurred before.  But that doesn't mean that there 
is a flaw in his overall method per se.


I'm inferring this from recent comments by participants to this topic.  
I think both you and JAS should carry on in your underlying methods as 
such.


Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact 
reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your 
arguments in each case, given these are held on server specially for our 
continued reference.


In natural language we point out, say, "method of JAS" and then again, 
"result from instance of application by JAS of method of JAS".  The 
string of items in the latter phrase constitute context of occurrence 
but not a watertight causal string.


Now the method of JAS is to pull elements from diverse contexts within 
CSP's oeuvre, and then list members express differences in view 
regarding the intermeshing of the charitable interpretations of the 
diverse elements.  But what is wrong with several such viewpoints?  They 
add to each other and don't detract.  None of them has to knock out the 
others, as if it was the Wimbledon Tournament.  Would to do so, be 
excessive application of excluded middle or non-contradiction?  Slightly 
too binary?


While we have a class of instances and while such a class is a 
universal, and a concrete in CSP's terms (because generalities are 
observed in the imagination), that doesn't provide us with a rule as to 
either the quality of argument in each instance within the class, nor 
the range of applications of the original points (of CSP) cited.


I suspect, since CSP was inclined to talk about "the universe and 
everything", his points do interrelate (in his own mind), but since he 
himself struggled in expression, everlasting discussion is essential.  
This is the path of research to not block, I think.  To produce variant 
interpretations, neither is blocking nor needs blocking, by appearing - 
unintendedly - to impugn methods within the huge range of methods 
needed.


Gary, I would value if you could add a hyperlink or some equally 
effective exact reference in cases like the last few so that we can 
study more easily the quality of points being made all round.  I think 
you started to say the same as me about John's response to JAS, but then 
appeared (against your intention) to do the same towards him by you not 
providing detail.


Practical suggestion to all please:

Can we add next to or below, if giving such a hyperlink, the author as 
well as time and date.  This might obviate copying of entire posts when 
having difficulty focussing on which is the core section at any time.  
(But some have already been chopping up quoted messages nicely though.)  
For me this means I've got to make future changes to my clipboard 
methods.


I'd also like to offer the thought that meditations offered are at best 
slightly tentative, but that only instances of fallacies need actual 
refuting.  And that CSP liked Ockham because he argued well in a 
generally defective ambit.


Please would everybody including Gary, pick these worded arguments of 
mine to pieces.


Michael Mitchell
former translator
U.K.

On 2020-05-14 5:09, John F. Sowa wrote:


Jon,

The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author
are true.  ...  "it constrains
the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's
sayings."

I have never claimed that any of your statements were meaningless or
irrational.  What I criticized was the strength and methods of the
argument.  For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
interpretation of what Peirce wrote led to a conclusion that was
different from a charitable interpretation of what you wrote.

JAS> We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make sweeping
judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding Peirce's
writings and discussing them intelligently.  We (apparently) disagree
about who among us has been guilty of doing exactly that.

I never said that you were incapable of understanding Peirce.  But I
did criticize your method of stringing together multiple quotations
from different contexts.  I did not claim that was irrational.



But I did say that the some of the critical quotations were taken out
of contexts where charity toward Peirce would give them a different
interpretation.

JAS> On the contrary, Gary R. is consistently an exemplary model of
the "generosity of attitude" that he advocates as List moderator.

No.  A list moderator has a right to admonish participants about
making inappropriate statements.  But a moderator has an obligation to
quote the statement(s) explicitly and state exactly why they are
inappropriate.

But Gary R made a blanket statement about my ability to