BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
1] Auke wrote that 'the dynamical object of science is reality'.
This is not the same as what JAS wrote, "The dynamical object of
every true proposition is reality," I think it's a logical
conclusion that science is focused on reality; whether the conclusion
of the research is true or not - is another issue. But one cannot
define reality as only 'that which is true', for such an assertion
would deny the semiosic interactions of people with their environment
and reduce these interactions to ..what...myths? Imaginary?...unless
these interactions provided evidence that the Interpretant was a
truthful interpretation of the DO?
And in response to:Auke's comment of: "If you were right, the
different sciences would be concerned with different realities.". JAS
wrote:" Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at
all, only their appearances;"
But phaneroscopy is concerned with the appearances of reality - and
this reality can't be different among the sciences.
Edwina
On Wed 16/06/21 10:31 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Auke, Edwina, List:
AvB: The dynamical object of science is reality.
The dynamical object of every true proposition is reality, but as De
Tienne's slide 4 (posted yesterday) hints at the very bottom,
phaneroscopists are "pre-truthists." Again, the subject matter of
phaneroscopy is whatever is or could be present to the mind,
including imagination and hallucination.
AvB: If you were right, the different sciences would be concerned
with different realities.
Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at all,
only their appearances; that is what differentiates it from
metaphysics. It is also not limited to the study of signs, but
examines any and every kind of phenomenon; that is what
differentiates it from semeiotic.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Auke, list
Exactly. Splitting up areas into separate domains might give one the
feeling of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science,
namely, reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected
immediate objects entrapped in each classification.
Edwina
On Wed 16/06/21 3:54 AM , "Auke van Breemen"
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [4] sent:
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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
