John, List, Dr. Jappy: The excerpt below from my post ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-06/msg00073.html) is incomplete. I began by stating that the cited writings by Dr. Jappy and quoted statements by Peirce are not about phaneroscopy at all, but about speculative grammar as the first branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic. I then provided two quotes from Dr. Jappy's book to this effect, which I will not repeat here.
JFS: Much of the confusion is caused by Peirce's unfortunate use of the term 'logic proper' (which occurs just 7 times in CP). There is no confusion once we recognize and maintain the careful distinction that Peirce draws between mathematics as the science *which draws* necessary (strictly deductive) conclusions about *hypothetical *states of things vs. "logic proper" as the normative science *of drawing* conclusions of all kinds (retroductive, deductive, and inductive) about *any *states of things. As such, it is generalized to semeiotic and has three branches--speculative grammar, logical critic, and speculative rhetoric (or methodeutic). Any confusion in this case is being caused by the utterly unwarranted claim that "formal semeiotic" is somehow a branch of phaneroscopy rather than speculative grammar. JFS: Many readers forget that the very first branch of his 1903 classification is 'formal logic' (a term that occurs 119 times in CP). This is true only when we are using "formal logic" as a synonym for "mathematical logic," not as an object of study in itself (*logica docens*) but merely as a tool for drawing necessary conclusions about hypothetical states of things (*logica utens*). That may not be what Peirce specifically has in mind with all 119 instances of "formal logic" in CP, especially since many of them likely predate his 1903 classification of the sciences. JFS: Speculative grammar depends on normative principles, which are derived after formal logic is used in conjunction with phaneroscopy to derive the categories and hypoicons. Phaneroscopy is not "used ... to derive the categories," it is the very science *within *which the categories are derived by prescinding the irreducible elements of whatever is or could be present to the mind. By contrast, hypoicons are *not *derived within phaneroscopy, they are derived within speculative grammar by employing the *framework *provided by phaneroscopy. This is obvious from the fact that such signs must *first *be classified as primarily iconic (rather than indexical or symbolic) in accordance with the nature of their relations to their dynamical objects. Dr. Jappy even says so in his cited paper. TJ: Note at this point that hypoiconicity is purely formal: adopting for simplicity the terminology of Charles Morris and certain currents of contemporary linguistics, the several hypoiconic formalisms described above cannot provide semantic or pragmatic information. Peirce’s speculative grammar, on which the 1903 Lowell Lectures on logic were based, simply established the purely formal criteria concerning what might constitute a class of signs or any one of its subdivisions such as a legisign, an index or a rheme. (p. 8) Hence, "formal semeiotic" *is *speculative grammar, the first branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic. Any classification of the sciences that instead treats it as a branch of phaneroscopy is not *Peirce's *classification of the sciences. JFS: I was wondering how you would classify the various topics that you cover in your book and articles. The title of Dr. Jappy's book explicitly characterizes its subject matter as "the philosophy of representation," and one of the quotes from it that I provided in my previous post explicitly defines this as the *normative *aspect of logic--i.e., semeiotic, including speculative grammar--as opposed to its formal/mathematical aspect. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:18 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > 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.
