Dear Tony, Jon AS, List,
I sent a note (copy below) to Peirce-L, in which I recommended some of your work for ongoing discussions of phaneroscopy. But Jon objected to my saying that your subject matter is phaneroscopy: JAS> Jappy's paper further clarifies that phenomenology/phaneroscopy provides the framework for classifying signs in the 1903 taxonomy, but that task itself clearly falls within speculative grammar. It is important not to conflate the two by treating the latter as if it were a branch of the former, since it also depends on esthetics and ethics as Peirce clearly maintained. Much of the confusion is caused by Peirce's unfortunate use of the term 'logic proper' (which occurs just 7 times in CP). Many readers forget that the very first branch of his 1903 classification is 'formal logic' (a term that occurs 119 times in CP). Speculative grammar depends on normative principles, which are derived after formal logic is used in conjunction with phaneroscopy to derive the categories and hypoicons. See the diagram cspsci2.png, which is attached below. I added the node labeled 'formal semeiotic' (a term that Peirce used a couple of times in his MSS) to represent the result of applying formal logic to experiences in the phaneron. I was wondering how you would classify the various topics that you cover in your book and articles. John ____________________________________ As background reading material about phaneroscopy, I recommend some important papers by Tony Jappy. Unlike many publications that talk only about abstract issues, Tony J illustrates the abstract analysis with specific examples of paintings and other images. "Two Peircean approaches to the image: hypoiconicity and semiosis" by Tony Jappy: https://www.academia.edu/40389448 For a book by Jappy with many more examples, see Peirce's 28 classes of signs and the philosophy of representation, https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/45654/625766.pdf Jappy has published more articles on phaneroscopy and related issues, but these two references are a good place to start. _________________________________ Some quotations by Peirce, which Jappy discusses: Now the Icon may undoubtedly be divided according to the categories; but the mere completeness of the notion of the icon does not imperatively call for any such division(EP2 163, April 1903). But a sign may be iconic, that is, may represent its object mainly by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being. If a substantive be wanted, an iconic [sign] may be termed a hypoicon. Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its mode of representation; but in itself, without legend or label it may be called a hypoicon. (1903, CP 2.276) Hypoicons may roughly [be] divided according to the mode of Firstness which they partake. Those which partake the simple qualities, or First Firstnesses, are images; those which represent the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams; those which represent the representative character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors. (R478 62; EP2:274, 1903)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
