Gary R., List: Are you sure that you are in full agreement with this statement?
JAS: There are "facts of phenomenology," but as soon as we begin analyzing these "familiar phenomena"--especially with respect to their "conformity ... to ends which are not immanent within" them--we are engaging in Normative Science, not Phaneroscopy. What I quoted from Peirce right above that comment seems to entail that anything much beyond merely *observing *whatever is or could be present to the mind and *recognizing *its indecomposable elements properly falls under Normative Science, rather than Phaneroscopy. Consider what he likewise wrote a few weeks and a few paragraphs earlier. CSP: But before we can attack any normative science, any science which proposes to separate the sheep from the goats, it is plain that there must be a preliminary inquiry which shall justify the attempt to establish such dualism. This must be a science that does *not *draw any distinction of good and bad in any sense whatever, but just contemplates phenomena as they are, simply opens its eyes and describes what it sees. Not what it sees in the real as distinguished from figment,--not regarding any such dichotomy,--but simply describing the object, as a phenomenon, and stating what it finds in all phenomena alike. (CP 5.37, EP 2:143; 1903) CSP: The first [division of philosophy] is Phenomenology, which simply contemplates the Universal Phenomenon, and discerns its ubiquitous elements, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, together perhaps with other series of categories ... For Phenomenology treats of the universal Qualities of Phenomena in their immediate phenomenal character, in themselves as phenomena. It, thus, treats of Phenomena in their Firstness. (CP 5.121-122, EP 2:196-197; 1903) Phaneroscopy examines Percepts *in themselves*, as Semes (CP 4.539; 1906) that have no parts, and employs *precission *to analyze them *mathematically *into predicates (NEM 3:917; 1904) with three irreducible *valencies*, which correspond to the Categories. However, the next step employs *hypostatic abstraction* to analyze those predicates *logically *into subjects of three irreducible *natures*, which correspond to the Universes, and "marries" them with a *continuous *predicate. In other words, it Retroductively formulates a Proposition *about* the Phaneron--namely, that *something *stands in *some relation* to *something else*--which is either true or false In fact, this constantly happens *involuntarily*, resulting in our Perceptual Judgments. As I see it, this is no longer Phaneroscopy, which deals only with *presented *appearances (1ns); it is Normative Science, specifically Logic as Semeiotic, which deals with *urged *Experience (2ns) and teaches us how to *learn *from it, such that our *beliefs*--i.e., our *habits of conduct*--will be stable, rather than confounded by *future *Experience (cf. CP 3.429; 1896). If I am right about this, then I continue to have a hard time seeing how Phenomenology could be expanded to include branches *other than* Phaneroscopy, as you and Andre De Tienne have proposed. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:11 AM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, Gary f, list, > > I have nothing at present to add to what Jon has written and only wish to > note that I am in full agreement with him. > > Best, > > Gary R > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >
----------------------------- 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 .
