Jon,
You wrote: 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. -- The dynamical object of science is reality. The branches of the sciences deliver immediate objects of that dynamical object. If you were right, the different sciences would be concerned with different realities. But then, how could an involved branch provide the principles for the next branch? Best, Auke > Op 15 juni 2021 om 20:05 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > 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 > mailto: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 > > mailto: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 > > > http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > > > -http://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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
