[PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> On Oct 6, 2021, at 4:38 PM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
> 
>  I can't recall a single instance of anyone ever
> changing their opinion about anything of any significance. 

Interesting view.

I feel several regular contributors have substantially matured in the past 20 
odd years that I have participated.

One regular poster on mathematics has substantially abandoned earlier positions 
and is actually doing reasonable work.

The key, for me, is to read relevant posts carefully.  

Now that almost all scientists have been eliminated from the list serve, I find 
it increasing difficult to find relevant posts.

Almost all professional philosophers have either been eliminated or died. 

In my judgment, the average IQ of posters here on this list serve is in log 
decline. 

Cheers

Jerry


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Bernard: 

> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand  wrote:
> 
> It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level of the 
> discussions on Peirce-l. 

My feelings are fully parallel with yours.

Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes the 
essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that constrain the 
discussions to the very, very  narrow interests of some scholars. 

Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions, ignore the 
historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries of earlier scholarship 
as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in mathematics, 
logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages, thereby reducing 
brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the turning of lively ideas into 
deadly boredom.  (If not even more deadly complete mis-representation.)

What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our 
communications? 

Cheers

Jerry  


Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that CSP’s logic is congruent with 
Robinson arithmetic?:-). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Gary Richmond]

Margaretha, List,

Welcome to active participation on the List. What a wonderful introductory
post! I hope your questions as to "whether Peirce had a unique theory of
metaphor" and what that might be are discussed here. And I might remark
that I too have a keen interest in what you referred to as Peirce's
"semiotic triangles." You might take a look at this paper of mine, esp.
Section 4: Triadic Semeiotic:
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm

Your ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List discussion might be
improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and Gary Furhman which
Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the spirit of collegiality,
could help improve communication here considerably. I hope they won't be
rejected out of hand. As you wrote: " It is all a manner of deliberate and
critical self-reflection on what one gets from being and participating on
this ListServ."

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:04 PM Margaretha Hendrickx 
wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> Yes, I believe it can be fixed.  It is a manner of deliberate and careful
> attention to the metaphors one uses while arguing, Lakoff & Johnson's 
> *Metaphors
> We Live By *opened my eyes to the choices we have on *how *to argue:
> - argument as war
> - argument as a tennis tournament
> - argument as constructing a cathedral
> - argument as dance
> - argument as repairing a ship in the middle of the sea
> - argument as computer programming
>
> Each one of these metaphors sets up written argumentation in subtly
> different form highlighting subtly different dimensions and downplaying
> others.  It is all a manner of deliberate and critical self-reflection on
> what one gets from being and participating on this ListServ.
>
> In case you wonder about my agenda, I am on this list to learn more on the
> received views on semiotic triangles, and how to generate more global
> awareness about this structure, and how to use it effectively precisely to
> reduce the likelihood of frustrating misunderstandings.
> But I have to admit that I needed to be educated about the omnipresence of
> spatial metaphors in human communicative processes before I fully grasped
> how to put semiotic triangles to work.
>
> I am still learning about whether Peirce had a unique theory of metaphor
> usage or whether there is such a thing as Peirce's own metaphor
> theory-in-use.
>
> So far, Stephen Pepper's (1942) *World Hypotheses * has been most helpful
> for me to put the work of Lakoff and Johnson in the larger context.
>
> My very best, Margaretha H.
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:29 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Jerry - yes, we know what the problem is. The question is:
>>
>> 1] How do we fix it? And even..
>>
>> 2] Can it be fixed?
>>
>> My answer to 2 is: No. Because we can't deal with 1.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 06/10/21 2:10 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Dear Edwina, Jerry, Bernard, list,
>>
>>
>> Why so pessimistic?
>>
>> I mean, we at least profess a dogmatic view that Peirce was a great
>> philosopher,
>>
>> and as such, we would at least follow his method of mediation, amirite?
>>
>> .. because ‘spring to action’ and all that..
>>
>>
>> So then, what does one do, as Peirceans, when faced with tribal behavior
>> in our own midst?
>>
>>
>> For the problem can be stated as thus:
>>
>>
>> And before a crowd means among the ignorant:
>>
>> for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing..
>>
>> Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor,
>>
>> the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert.
>>
>>
>>
>> With best wishes,
>> Jerry R
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be difficult
>>> to post, since one is so frequently met with, not a discussion, but
>>> authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not say/mean...that'...
>>>
>>> One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'. Or
>>> 'I think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is quite
>>> relentless in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not genuinely
>>> following Peirce...and so on.
>>>
>>> It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider
>>> themselves 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are viewed as
>>> outsiders with little claim or right to discuss the issues - and certainly
>>> cannot claim membership with the select few.
>>>
>>> I doubt if this can change.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed 06/10/21 1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr sent:
>>>
>>> Thanks Jerry for this reply and support.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear Margaretha, JAS, Edwina, list,


Why pay

   deliberate and careful attention to

- argument as war

- argument as a tennis tournament

- argument as constructing a cathedral

- argument as dance

- argument as repairing a ship in the middle of the sea

- argument as computer programming



When

*Do not take offense *will do, *amirite*?


Or better than even that, (in the form of an imperative):

Do *both*!


*everyone *would (a) refrain from posting "you" messages, especially when
the subject matter is potentially contentious,

and (b) deliberately choose *not *to take personal offense at anything
posted by anyone else.


Hope that helps.


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:03 PM Margaretha Hendrickx 
wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> Yes, I believe it can be fixed.  It is a manner of deliberate and careful
> attention to the metaphors one uses while arguing, Lakoff & Johnson's 
> *Metaphors
> We Live By *opened my eyes to the choices we have on *how *to argue:
> - argument as war
> - argument as a tennis tournament
> - argument as constructing a cathedral
> - argument as dance
> - argument as repairing a ship in the middle of the sea
> - argument as computer programming
>
> Each one of these metaphors sets up written argumentation in subtly
> different form highlighting subtly different dimensions and downplaying
> others.  It is all a manner of deliberate and critical self-reflection on
> what one gets from being and participating on this ListServ.
>
> In case you wonder about my agenda, I am on this list to learn more on the
> received views on semiotic triangles, and how to generate more global
> awareness about this structure, and how to use it effectively precisely to
> reduce the likelihood of frustrating misunderstandings.
> But I have to admit that I needed to be educated about the omnipresence of
> spatial metaphors in human communicative processes before I fully grasped
> how to put semiotic triangles to work.
>
> I am still learning about whether Peirce had a unique theory of metaphor
> usage or whether there is such a thing as Peirce's own metaphor
> theory-in-use.
>
> So far, Stephen Pepper's (1942) *World Hypotheses * has been most helpful
> for me to put the work of Lakoff and Johnson in the larger context.
>
> My very best, Margaretha H.
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:29 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Jerry - yes, we know what the problem is. The question is:
>>
>> 1] How do we fix it? And even..
>>
>> 2] Can it be fixed?
>>
>> My answer to 2 is: No. Because we can't deal with 1.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 06/10/21 2:10 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Dear Edwina, Jerry, Bernard, list,
>>
>>
>> Why so pessimistic?
>>
>> I mean, we at least profess a dogmatic view that Peirce was a great
>> philosopher,
>>
>> and as such, we would at least follow his method of mediation, amirite?
>>
>> .. because ‘spring to action’ and all that..
>>
>>
>> So then, what does one do, as Peirceans, when faced with tribal behavior
>> in our own midst?
>>
>>
>> For the problem can be stated as thus:
>>
>>
>> And before a crowd means among the ignorant:
>>
>> for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing..
>>
>> Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor,
>>
>> the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert.
>>
>>
>>
>> With best wishes,
>> Jerry R
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be difficult
>>> to post, since one is so frequently met with, not a discussion, but
>>> authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not say/mean...that'...
>>>
>>> One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'. Or
>>> 'I think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is quite
>>> relentless in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not genuinely
>>> following Peirce...and so on.
>>>
>>> It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider
>>> themselves 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are viewed as
>>> outsiders with little claim or right to discuss the issues - and certainly
>>> cannot claim membership with the select few.
>>>
>>> I doubt if this can change.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed 06/10/21 1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr sent:
>>>
>>> Thanks Jerry for this reply and support.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent question:
>>> "What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
>>> communications? "
>>>
>>> Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that. They
>>> ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of "one hundred
>>> flowers" campaign.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Bernard
>>> Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR Chandler a écrit :
>>>
>>> Bernard:
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Margaretha Hendrickx]

Hi all.

Yes, I believe it can be fixed.  It is a manner of deliberate and careful
attention to the metaphors one uses while arguing, Lakoff & Johnson's
*Metaphors
We Live By *opened my eyes to the choices we have on *how *to argue:
- argument as war
- argument as a tennis tournament
- argument as constructing a cathedral
- argument as dance
- argument as repairing a ship in the middle of the sea
- argument as computer programming

Each one of these metaphors sets up written argumentation in subtly
different form highlighting subtly different dimensions and downplaying
others.  It is all a manner of deliberate and critical self-reflection on
what one gets from being and participating on this ListServ.

In case you wonder about my agenda, I am on this list to learn more on the
received views on semiotic triangles, and how to generate more global
awareness about this structure, and how to use it effectively precisely to
reduce the likelihood of frustrating misunderstandings.
But I have to admit that I needed to be educated about the omnipresence of
spatial metaphors in human communicative processes before I fully grasped
how to put semiotic triangles to work.

I am still learning about whether Peirce had a unique theory of metaphor
usage or whether there is such a thing as Peirce's own metaphor
theory-in-use.

So far, Stephen Pepper's (1942) *World Hypotheses * has been most helpful
for me to put the work of Lakoff and Johnson in the larger context.

My very best, Margaretha H.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:29 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Jerry - yes, we know what the problem is. The question is:
>
> 1] How do we fix it? And even..
>
> 2] Can it be fixed?
>
> My answer to 2 is: No. Because we can't deal with 1.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 06/10/21 2:10 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Dear Edwina, Jerry, Bernard, list,
>
>
> Why so pessimistic?
>
> I mean, we at least profess a dogmatic view that Peirce was a great
> philosopher,
>
> and as such, we would at least follow his method of mediation, amirite?
>
> .. because ‘spring to action’ and all that..
>
>
> So then, what does one do, as Peirceans, when faced with tribal behavior
> in our own midst?
>
>
> For the problem can be stated as thus:
>
>
> And before a crowd means among the ignorant:
>
> for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing..
>
> Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor,
>
> the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert.
>
>
>
> With best wishes,
> Jerry R
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be difficult to
>> post, since one is so frequently met with, not a discussion, but
>> authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not say/mean...that'...
>>
>> One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'. Or 'I
>> think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is quite relentless
>> in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not genuinely following
>> Peirce...and so on.
>>
>> It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider
>> themselves 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are viewed as
>> outsiders with little claim or right to discuss the issues - and certainly
>> cannot claim membership with the select few.
>>
>> I doubt if this can change.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 06/10/21 1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr sent:
>>
>> Thanks Jerry for this reply and support.
>>
>> Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent question: "What
>> practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
>> communications? "
>>
>> Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that. They
>> ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of "one hundred
>> flowers" campaign.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernard
>> Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR Chandler a écrit :
>>
>> Bernard:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level of
>> the discussions on Peirce-l.
>>
>>
>> My feelings are fully parallel with yours.
>>
>> Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes the
>> essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that constrain the
>> discussions to the very, very  narrow interests of some scholars.
>>
>> Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions, ignore
>> the historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries of earlier
>> scholarship as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in
>> mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages,
>> thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the turning of
>> lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If not even more deadly complete
>> mis-representation.)
>>
>> What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
>> communications?
>>
>> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry C., List:

JLRC: What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and
our communications?


John Sowa and Gary Fuhrman each offered advice a few years ago that I have
generally tried to follow in my own List participation, although I have not
always been successful.

JFS: In another email list some years ago, a wise soul made a suggestion
for reducing heated arguments in a debate: Avoid the word 'you'. Every
occurrence of the word 'you' shifts the focus from the statement to the
person who made the statement. This immediately puts that person on the
defensive--and the result is an escalating round of ad hominem attacks and
defenses. For the list I mentioned, the practice of avoiding the word 'you'
kept the peace, shortened the debates, and made life more pleasant for
everyone. (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00018.html)

GF: As we’ve seen here recently, people who are inclined to be defensive
(and to engage in heated debates) will tend to do so regardless of the
presence or absence of the word “you” (or any other particular word) in a
message. Shifting the focus from the statement by “taking it personally”
and reacting against some imagined slight in it is a habit that can’t be
cured by avoiding any specific word across the board. The rule I have
invoked in my past experience moderating email groups is simply this: *Do
not take offense*. If nobody takes offense, nobody can *give *offense, even
if they are trying to. Those who are defensive about their own statements,
on the other hand, will often take offense when none is intended. If we can
avoid this, the impulse to *give *offense is likely to dry up, because the
would-be offender will not succeed in getting the reaction he seeks. (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00019.html)


It seems to me that the quality of our List discussions would likely
improve considerably if *everyone *would (a) refrain from posting "you"
messages, especially when the subject matter is potentially contentious,
and (b) deliberately choose *not *to take personal offense at anything
posted by anyone else.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:05 AM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> Bernard:
>
> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand 
> wrote:
>
> It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level of the
> discussions on Peirce-l.
>
> My feelings are fully parallel with yours.
>
> Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes the
> essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that constrain the
> discussions to the very, very narrow interests of some scholars.
>
> Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions, ignore
> the historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries of earlier
> scholarship as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in
> mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages,
> thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the turning of
> lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If not even more deadly complete
> mis-representation.)
>
> What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
> communications?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
> Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that CSP’s logic is congruent
> with Robinson arithmetic?:-)
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry - yes, we know what the problem is. The question is:

1] How do we fix it? And even..

2] Can it be fixed?

My answer to 2 is: No. Because we can't deal with 1.

Edwina
 On Wed 06/10/21  2:10 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
Dear Edwina, Jerry, Bernard, list, 
Why so pessimistic? 

I mean, we at least profess a dogmatic view that Peirce was a great
philosopher, 

 and as such, we would at least follow his method of mediation,
amirite?  

.. because ‘spring to action’ and all that.. 
So then, what does one do, as Peirceans, when faced with tribal
behavior in our own midst? 
For the problem can be stated as thus: 
And before a crowd means among the ignorant: 

for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing.. 

Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor, 

the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert. 
With best wishes,
 Jerry R
 On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be
difficult to post, since one is so frequently met with, not a
discussion, but authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not
say/mean...that'... 

One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'.
Or 'I think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is
quite relentless in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not
genuinely following Peirce...and so on. 

It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider
themselves 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are
viewed as outsiders with little claim or right to discuss the issues
- and certainly cannot claim membership with the select few.

I doubt if this can change.

Edwina
 On Wed 06/10/21  1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr [2]
sent:
Thanks Jerry for this reply and support. 

Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent  
question: "What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our  
community and our communications? " 

Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that.
  They ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of  
"one hundred flowers" campaign. 

Regards 

Bernard Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR   Chandler a écrit
:
Bernard: 
On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand  
   wrote:   
   It is a good illustration of my   feeling
about the bad quality level of the discussions on  
Peirce-l.
   My feelings are fully parallel with yours.   
  Your articulative description of the styles of
communication denotes the essential nature of the subjective
logical fallacies that constrain the discussions to the very,
very  narrow interests of some scholars.
  Such styles, while offering a sense of historical  
  truth functions, ignore the historically historic roots of CSP  
  writings in centuries of earlier scholarship as well as his
extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in mathematics,
logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages,
thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the 
   turning of lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If not even more
deadly complete mis-representation.)   
  What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our   
 community and our communications?
  Cheers   
  Jerry 
  Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that  
  CSP’s logic is congruent with Robinson arithmetic?:-). 
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 ► 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 [3] . 
 ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu [4] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE
of the message and nothing in the body.  More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [5] .
 ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary
Richmond;  and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'morand.bern...@neuf.fr\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear Edwina, Jerry, Bernard, list,


Why so pessimistic?

I mean, we at least profess a dogmatic view that Peirce was a great
philosopher,

and *as* such, we would at least follow his method of mediation, *amirite*?


.. because ‘spring to action’ and all that..


So then, what does one do, *as* Peirceans, when faced with tribal behavior
in our own midst?


For the problem can be stated as thus:


And before a crowd means among the ignorant:

for surely, among those who know, he will not be more convincing..

Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor,

the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert.



With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be difficult to
> post, since one is so frequently met with, not a discussion, but
> authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not say/mean...that'...
>
> One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'. Or 'I
> think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is quite relentless
> in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not genuinely following
> Peirce...and so on.
>
> It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider themselves
> 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are viewed as outsiders
> with little claim or right to discuss the issues - and certainly cannot
> claim membership with the select few.
>
> I doubt if this can change.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 06/10/21 1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr sent:
>
> Thanks Jerry for this reply and support.
>
> Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent question: "What
> practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
> communications? "
>
> Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that. They
> ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of "one hundred
> flowers" campaign.
>
> Regards
>
> Bernard
> Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR Chandler a écrit :
>
> Bernard:
>
> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand 
> wrote:
>
> It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level of the
> discussions on Peirce-l.
>
>
> My feelings are fully parallel with yours.
>
> Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes the
> essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that constrain the
> discussions to the very, very  narrow interests of some scholars.
>
> Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions, ignore
> the historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries of earlier
> scholarship as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in
> mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages,
> thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the turning of
> lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If not even more deadly complete
> mis-representation.)
>
> What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our
> communications?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
> Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that CSP’s logic is congruent
> with Robinson arithmetic?:-).
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the
> message and nothing in the body.  More at
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

I think it is very difficult to change this list.  It can be
difficult to post, since one is so frequently met with, not a
discussion, but authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not
say/mean...that'... 

One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'.
Or 'I think that'.  Instead, it's authoritative verbiage that is
quite relentless in claiming that you are quite wrong, you are not
genuinely following Peirce...and so on.

It's almost like a tribal syndrome, where a few people consider
themselves 'Genuine Members of the Peirce Tribe'..and others are
viewed as outsiders with little claim or right to discuss the issues
- and certainly cannot claim membership with the select few.

I doubt if this can change.

Edwina
 On Wed 06/10/21  1:30 PM , Bernard Morand morand.bern...@neuf.fr
sent:
Thanks Jerry for this reply and support. 

Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent  
question: "What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our  
community and our communications? " 

Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that.
  They ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of  
"one hundred flowers" campaign. 

Regards 

Bernard Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR   Chandler a écrit
:
Bernard: 
On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand  
   wrote:   
   It is a good illustration of my   feeling
about the bad quality level of the discussions on  
Peirce-l.
   My feelings are fully parallel with yours.   
  Your articulative description of the styles of
communication denotes the essential nature of the subjective
logical fallacies that constrain the discussions to the very,
very  narrow interests of some scholars.
  Such styles, while offering a sense of historical  
  truth functions, ignore the historically historic roots of CSP  
  writings in centuries of earlier scholarship as well as his
extreme breath of knowledge and imagination in mathematics,
logic, physics, chemistry and multiple natural languages,
thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The consequence is the 
   turning of lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If not even more
deadly complete mis-representation.)   
  What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our   
 community and our communications?
  Cheers   
  Jerry 
  Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that  
  CSP’s logic is congruent with Robinson arithmetic?:-). 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'morand.bern...@neuf.fr\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Bernard Morand]

Thanks Jerry for this reply and support.

Unfortunately I have no complete answer to your pertinent question: 
"What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our 
communications? "


Perhaps some listers actually silent have good ideas about that. They 
ought to be encouraged to manifest themselves in some kind of "one 
hundred flowers" campaign.


Regards

Bernard

Le 06/10/2021 à 18:03, Jerry LR Chandler a écrit :

Bernard:

On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Bernard Morand > wrote:


It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level 
of the discussions on Peirce-l.


My feelings are fully parallel with yours.

Your articulative description of the styles of communication denotes 
the essential nature of the subjective logical fallacies that 
constrain the discussions to the very, very  narrow interests of some 
scholars.


Such styles, while offering a sense of historical truth functions, 
ignore the historically historic roots of CSP writings in centuries of 
earlier scholarship as well as his extreme breath of knowledge and 
imagination in mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and multiple 
natural languages, thereby reducing brilliance to dullness.  The 
consequence is the turning of lively ideas into deadly boredom.  (If 
not even more deadly complete mis-representation.)


What practical steps are necessary to re-enliven our community and our 
communications?


Cheers

Jerry


Postscript for Robert Marty:  Do you believe that CSP’s logic is 
congruent with Robinson arithmetic?    :-).


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abracadabra (was Modeling Humanities : the case of Peirce's Semiotics (part B1))

[Bernard Morand]

List,

Robert Marty has shown below how a manipulation of pieces of quotes, 
then reassembled, can finally betray a text as a whole.


It is a good illustration of my feeling about the bad quality level of 
the discussions on Peirce-l.


We have recourse to quotes since it is undoubtely the simpler secure way 
for refering to Peirce's writings.


But, as I said in a previous post, an abusive usage makes them 
authoritative (dogmatic) arguments, lacking of textual context, and 
despite the fact that Peirce himself claimed to be a faillibilist.


To my sense this tendency to restrict the discussions to quotes, 
multiplying them infinitely, repeating them as if they were mantras 
impoverishes the debates.


Contributors to the list seem to have become specialists of electronic 
searches by keywords through Peirce writings at the expense of their own 
reflexion.


Not to speak of repeated personal attacks and so called tribal behaviours.

Something (I don't know really what) ought to be made in order to revive 
the quality of the discussions.


Bernard Morand


Le 27/08/2021 à 18:49, robert marty a écrit :

Jon Alan, List

*A MAGIC TRICK*

/How to make a pseudo-quote from a quote to create a desired meaning/

It is straightforward: you choose in the last sentence a piece that 
suits you (1), then you go back to the beginning of the text by 
selecting another piece (2), which you link with two others (3) and 
(4) in the logic of the text. You obtain the following demonstration 
(which you attribute to Peirce!) according to which:


 "the mathematician "/without inquiring or caring whether it [the pure 
hypothesis] agrees with the actual facts or not *(1)*, /while the 
phaneroscopist (now an engineer)/ " finds it suits his purpose to 
ascertain what the necessary consequences of possible facts would be" 
*(2)*,/ then " calls upon a mathematician and states the question 
*(3)*,  and concludes whether the result "/simpler but quite 
fictitious problem *(4)* /are consistent with observed facts.


**

*PROOF :*

**

JAS > This is a straw man, since no one is advocating what is 
described here as an "impossibility." I have explicitly and repeatedly 
acknowledged the role of mathematicians in /formulating /the pure 
hypotheses ("skeleton-sets") from which they subsequently draw 
necessary conclusions in accordance with the concluding sentence of CP 
3.559 (1898). Nevertheless, as Peirce himself goes on to observe, they 
do this */"without inquiring or caring whether it [the pure 
hypothesis] agrees with the actual facts or not /**/(1)/*." It is the 
phaneroscopist who */"finds it suits his purpose to ascertain what the 
necessary consequences of possible facts would be/*"*/(2) /*and thus 
/"calls upon a mathematician and states the question"/*/(3)/**,***and 
it is the phaneroscopist who inductively evaluates whether the 
mathematician's deductive conclusions from the resulting */"simpler 
but quite fictitious problem /**/(4)/**"*are consistent with observed 
facts.


PEIRCE >  CP 3.559

A simple way of arriving at a true conception of the mathematician's 
business is to consider what service it is which he is called in to 
render in the course of any scientific or other inquiry. Mathematics 
has always been more or less a trade. An engineer, or a business 
company (say, an insurance company), or a buyer (say, of land), or a 
physicist, */finds it suits his purpose to ascertain what the 
necessary consequences of possible facts would be/*//*/(2)/*; but the 
facts are so complicated that he cannot deal with them in his usual 
way. */He calls upon a mathematician and states the question 
/**/(3)./*Now the mathematician does not conceive it to be any part of 
his duty to verify the facts stated. He accepts them absolutely 
without question. He does not in the least care whether they are 
correct or not. He finds, however, in almost every case that the 
statement has one inconvenience, and in many cases that it has a 
second. The first inconvenience is that, though the statement may not 
at first sound very complicated, yet, when it is accurately analyzed, 
it is found to imply so intricate a condition of things that it far 
surpasses the power of the mathematician to say with exactitude what 
its consequence would be. At the same time, it frequently happens that 
the facts, as stated, are insufficient to answer the question that is 
put. Accordingly, the first business of the mathematician, often a 
most difficult task, is to frame another */simpler but quite 
fictitious problem (4)/*(supplemented, perhaps, by some supposition), 
which shall be within his powers, while at the same time it is 
sufficiently like the problem set before him to answer, well or ill, 
as a substitute for it. This substituted problem differs also from 
that which was first set before the mathematician in another respect: 
namely, that it is highly abstract. All features that have no bearing 
upon the relations of the premisses to the conclusion