Dear Kirsti, you are always welcome. He also wrote a two volume phenomenology of law.
Best, Stefan Am 23. November 2016 14:02:38 MEZ, schrieb kirst...@saunalahti.fi: >Hi Stefan, > >Very interesting! Especially because the author is a lawyer. Still, I >doubt I'll have time to read these. > >Anyway, Husserlian phenomenology is thoroughly different from Peircean >phenomenology. They started from a very, very different conception of >mind. For starters. > >Quite often, people take the same term to refer to the same concept, or > >at least the same idea. - Not so with CSP and Husserl. > >Dilthey is a classic within hermeneutics. But there is not an inkling >towards experimental philosophy by CSP. > >The European tradition of interpreting ancient (or old) texts is of >course worth knowing about. But CSP has written on the topic himself. >Plenty. > >Thanks for the information, anyway. Perhaps I'll look something up on >the basis of your incentive. > >Best, > >Kirsti > >sb kirjoitti 15.11.2016 23:33: >> John, Kirsti, List, for those interested in the philosophy of stories >> and able to read german i recommend: >> >> * Wilhelm Schapp (2012) In Geschichten verstrickt. Zu Sein von >> Mensch und Ding. 5. ed. Klostermann. >> * Wilhelm Schapp (1981) Philosophie der Geschichten. 2. ed. >> Klostermann. >> >> His academic teachers were Rickert, Simmel and Dilthey. He got his >PhD >> in 1910 in Göttingen from Husserl. His Doktorarbeit "Beiträge zur >> Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung" is one of the classic texts of german >> phenomenology. He didn't pursue a career as an academic and worked >his >> life long as a lawyer. His phenomenology of stories is strongly >> influenced by his work as a lawyer. >> >> Schapps style is lucent and clear. He is fun to read and the absolute >> opposite of Husserls dry turkey books. >> >> Best, >> Stefan >> >> P.S: http://www.wilhelm-schapp-forschung.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/ >> [1] >> >> Am 10.11.16 um 14:51 schrieb kirst...@saunalahti.fi: >> >>> John, list, >>> >>> Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between >>> stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many >>> just as possible stories. >>> >>> Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are >>> storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot the >>> time-scale issues. >>> >>> Best, Kirsti >>> >>> John F Sowa kirjoitti 9.11.2016 21:25: >>> Edwina, Kirsti, list, >>> >>> ET >>> I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. >>> >>> I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the >>> >>> issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from >>> p. 2 >>> of a book on biosemiotics (see below). Following is the critical >>> point: >>> >>> GB >>> thinking in terms of stories must be shared by all mind or minds >>> whether ours or those of redwood forests and sea anemones... >>> A story is a little knot or complex of that species of >>> connectedness which we call relevance. >>> >>> This observation is compatible with Peirce, but CSP used the term >>> 'quasi-mind' to accommodate the species-bias of most humans: >>> >>> CP 4.551 >>> Admitting that connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, it may >>> further >>> be declared that there can be no isolated sign. Moreover, signs >>> require at least two Quasi-minds; a Quasi-utterer and a Quasi- >>> interpreter; and although these two are at one (i.e., are one mind) >>> >>> in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct. In the >>> Sign >>> they are, so to say, welded. Accordingly, it is not merely a fact >>> of human Psychology, but a necessity of Logic, that every logical >>> evolution of thought should be dialogic. >>> >>> Re time: We have to distinguish (1) time as it is in reality >>> (whatever that may be); (2) time in our stories (which include the >>> formalized stories called physics); (3) the mental sequence of >>> thought; and (4) the logical sequence (dialogic) of connected >>> signs. >>> >>> ET >>> The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the >>> so-called >>> Big Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S [not John S] >>> >>> read them as BEFORE. In my reading, before the Big Bang, there was >>> Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. >>> >>> This question is about time sequences in different kinds of >>> stories: >>> the Big Bang story about what reality may be; and Platonic stories >>> about ideal, mathematical forms. >>> >>> The time sequence of a mathematical story is independent of the >>> time >>> sequence of a physical story. We may apply the math (for example, >>> the definitions, axioms, and proofs of a Platonic form) to the >>> construction of a physical story. >>> >>> But that application is a mapping between two stories. The term >>> 'prior to' is meaningful only *within* a story, not between >>> stories. >>> >>> In short, our "commonsense" notion of time is an abstraction from >>> the stories we tell about our experience. The time sequences in >>> two >>> different stories may have some similarities, but we must >>> distinguish >>> three distinct sequences: the time sequences of each story, and >>> the >>> time sequence of the mapping, which is a kind of meta-story. >>> >>> JFS >>> Does anyone know if [Peirce] had written anything about embedding >>> our universe in a hypothetical space of higher dimension? >> >> KM >> >>> I am most interested in knowing more on this. >> >> David Finkelstein, p. 277 of the reference below: >> >>> Peirce seems to have included geometry in his evolutionism, at least >>> >>> in principle... [He] seems not to have responded to the >>> continuously- >>> evolving physical geometry of Riemann and Clifford... nor to >>> Einstein's >>> conceptual unification of space and time. >> >> In any case, I think that the notion of time as an abstraction from >> stories -- imaginary, factual, or theoretical -- provides a way of >> relating different views. It also allows for metalevel reasoning >> that can distinguish and relate different kinds of stories that >> have independent time scales and sequences. >> >> John >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> >> From Google books: >> >> _A Legacy for Living Systems: Gregory Bateson as Precursor >> to Biosemiotics_ edited by Jesper Hoffmeyer, Springer, 2008: >> >> >https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+arrangement&source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YAG597uwjyedB4dSf2BuC0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyZD88JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Order%20is%20simply%20thought%20embodied%20in%20arrangement&f=false >> [2] >> >> David R. Finkelstein, _Quantum Relativity: A Synthesis of the Ideas >> of Heisenberg and Einstein_, Springer, 1996. >> >> >https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl&ots=0rc7kjxqIJ&sig=Hsgtu9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZzQAhWF3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false >> [3] >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://www.wilhelm-schapp-forschung.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/ >> [2] >> >https://books.google.com/books?id=dcHqVpZ97pUC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Order+is+simply+thought+embodied+in+arrangement&source=bl&ots=DQUnZlvOYu&sig=X8bH0YAG597uwjyedB4dSf2BuC0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizyZD88JrQAhVENxQKHeEeBwoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Order%20is%20simply%20thought%20embodied%20in%20arrangement&f=false >> [3] >> >https://books.google.com/books?id=OvjsCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=peirce+relativity&source=bl&ots=0rc7kjxqIJ&sig=Hsgtu9_LwZAoDxH7kbVgvWmAfiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk4SzpZzQAhWF3YMKHR1kA5wQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=peirce%20relativity&f=false -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
----------------------------- 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 .
