Edwina, List: ET: But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the method-of-analysis, could come up with a completely different interpretation of 'that-which-is-studied'.
It is not just the *method *of analysis that is different for each science within Peirce's classification, but also the *object* of study. Phaneroscopy examines *whatever *is or could be present to the mind. Semeiotic studies *only *signs and semiosis. ET: You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without the 'input' into the body of this external force. ... my point is that Firstness has to involve the inclusion/insertion of the external stimulus into the body. On the contrary, again, pure 1ns is that quality of feeling *in itself*, completely independent of us "getting" it by means of "input" into the body by means of "external stimulus." Any such *physical *process is, by definition, 2ns as governed by 3ns. We never experience 1ns directly, we always must *prescind *it from 2ns and 3ns, as we will be discussing further in forthcoming slides of the slow read. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:39 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > 1] JAS wrote, in reply to my first question: > > "Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results of phaneroscopic > study is different from the proper interpretation of the results of > semeiotic study." > > But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the method-of-analysis, > could come up with a completely different interpretation of > 'that-which-is-studied'. I think this is problematic. I'm not a fan of > McLuhan's 'the medium is the message'. > > 2] You are confining the term 'sensation' to 'awareness'. I don't do this. > You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without the 'input' into the > body of this external force. Otherwise - there wouldn't be any 'feeling' > quality or not. So, if "the first is agent', the second patient' 1.361, my > point is that Firstness has to involve the inclusion/insertion of the > external stimulus into the body. This does not involve awareness or > consciousness but it does involve 'acceptance' into the self-domain, so to > speak. > > Edwina > > On Tue 15/06/21 1:21 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: What is the functionality of putting an area of study, such as Jappy's > work, into 'semeiotic' rather than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a > categorization affect the results of the study? > > > Why did Peirce develop a classification of the sciences that carefully > distinguishes phaneroscopy from semeiotic? Primarily because their purposes > are different, with the result that their principles are different. In > fact, the principles of semeiotic depend upon the principles of > phaneroscopy, while the latter do not depend upon the former. Therefore, > the proper interpretation of the results of phaneroscopic study is > different from the proper interpretation of the results of semeiotic study. > > ET: My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation of X > > > No, sensation is a physical process and therefore a manifestation of 2ns. > Pure 1ns is a quality of feeling, as it is in itself without reference to > anything else; not any actual feeling, as it is experienced and > distinguished from other feelings. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:34 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> List >> >> I have several comments >> >> 1] First, a question to Gary R and John Sowa: What is the functionality >> of putting an area of study, such as Jappy's work, into 'semeiotic' rather >> than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a categorization affect the results of >> the study? >> >> 2] With reference to Bakhtin, I wouldn't define him as a semiotician >> but put him in the camp of semiology - and there's a huge difference >> between the two. >> >> 3] I'd have a different interpretation of Cathy's example. Since the >> semiotic interaction is dialogic, then, the sensation of the categories and >> indeed, their 'mode of being' [8.328] rests within the interaction. So, I >> don't understand how a frame and canvas is, in itself, is a hypoicon of the >> Mona Lisa. I, as the receiver n this semiotic dialogue, could only react to >> the reality of what is in front of me: a frame and canvas. >> >> My understanding of the hypoicon is that the received sensation, if a >> duplicate of X, is an image. If it represents the parts of X, then it is a >> diagram. If it is representative of X, then it is a metaphor. But in all >> cases, X must exist. In the first case, X is a frame and canvas; that is >> what my senses receive; there is no inherent potentiality to 'be' the Mona >> Lisa. >> >> My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation of X - >> and whether it is a frame or picture is not relevant. After that first >> sensation, the other categories move into their function; so, an >> interpretant in the mode of 2-1 [rhematic indexical] might see a diagram. >> And adding in the knowledge base of Thirdness, I could come up with 3-1 and >> a rhematic symbol. >> >> Edwina >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
