Edwina, List, Edwina wrote: "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked."
What do *you* mean that her critique of the List "should not be overlooked"? What *I* think should not be 'overlooked' is outlined in what I write below. In truth, I was surprised at the reason Cathy gave for leaving the List: "finding some Plato and Descartes influences to be a little too entrenched here." I can say with some confidence that, for example, the principal organizers of this slow read (not do mention De TIenne himself) are about as influenced by Plato and Descartes as Peirce was, which is to say essentially rejecting Platonism (pure, as opposed to objective idealism, etc.) and Cartesianism (Cartesian dualism, etc.) And none of us has written anything whatsoever since this slow read began which could even be vaguely interpreted as even referring to Plato or Descartes. It is you who keeps making the claim that certain members of the List express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have not been able to support that claim because it is empty and patently false. Please offer some quotations from, for example, any of Gary Fuhrman's, Jon Alan Schmidt's, or my (or others') posts which you believe show these influences. You make these entirely bogus claims about forum members who are just going about doing what I see to be serious work in philosophy, this work being appreciated by a number of members of the larger Peirce community, being published in the doing, etc. It is as if you seemed to imagine that your own fields of interest countered the very legitimacy of the fields in which they work, denigrating their work as being "confined to the seminar room" as you wrote just yesterday and as you've written on several occasions. Do you think that we should all just stop doing cenoscopic philosophy because you've determined that all that's really important are applications of semeiotic? Perhaps it is *that* kind of baseless critique which "should not be overlooked" because, perhaps it suggests to potential new members, for example, a kind of narrowness of perspective, one which it seems to me to be reflected more in your often contemptuous critique than in the work of those whom you not infrequently disparagingly criticize. Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:46 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > List > > I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it [Cartesian, > Platonic] should not be overlooked. > > Edwina > > > > On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: > > Jon AS, list, > > I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into Peirce’s > classification of sciences, as I think that will explain what André means > by saying that phaneroscopists are “pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some > of the ideas floated in the other thread show what happens when people try > to fit phaneroscopy (or the universal categories) into a preconceived > framework such as a semiotic theory. For instance, one result is a > confusion of Firstness with iconicity. > > The pragmatic relationships among phaneroscopy, mathematics, logic and > semeiotic are actually quite complex and sometimes recursive, as I hope > will become clear as we take a closer look at Peirce’s texts on the > subject. For today I’d just like to share a paragraph from André De > Tienne’s 1993 paper on “Peirce’s Definitions of the Phaneron”: > > [[ Our awareness of a phaneron is always total and puts it into our > “Immediate and Complete possession” (MS 645:3, 1909). The most important > feature is the immediacy, the directness, with which one is aware of the > phaneron. The appearance and the mind are conflated, which means that there > is nothing to mediate between the two: there is no intervening sign. We are > put facie ad faciem before the very phaneron itself, Peirce says (MS 645:5). > Direct awareness is a face-to-face encounter, which is the same as saying > that that which appears to a mind is not represented. A seeming is not a > representation, at least not in the first place, and thus a phaneron never > conveys any cognitive information. Direct awareness is therefore not to be > confounded with cognitive intuition, which is a faculty whose existence > Peirce denies. It follows, then, that the mode of manifestation of a > phaneron must be in some essential respect quite different from that of a > sign.] (De Tienne 1993, 282) ] > > The “direct awareness” at the heart of phaneroscopy requires its > observations to be pre-theoretical and pre-logical (and a fortiori, > pre-truth!). But as Peirce said, it takes a ““great effort not to be > influenced” by one’s habitual preconceptions (especially if one believes > that all awareness is semiotic, i.e. mediated). This is exactly the kind > of opinion that one has to set aside in order to develop a well-grounded > conception of semiosis is in the first place. > > > > Gary f. > > > > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt > Sent: 15-Jun-21 12:17 > > Gary F., List: > > I agree that the last line on this slide is especially important, but > several recent posts have exhibited evidence of the mistake described in > the one right above it. In fact, at times I myself have surely been guilty > of jumping too quickly from phaneroscopy into semeiotic. The problem is > that if we focus exclusively on representation and mediation, which are > paradigmatic manifestations of 3ns, then we effectively skip right over 1ns > as quality and 2ns as reaction. Moreover, Peirce makes it very clear that > phaneroscopy is an activity in which every inquirer must engage. > > CSP: Understand me well. My appeal is to observation,--observation that > each of you must make for himself. (CP 5.52, EP 2:154, 1903) > > CSP: There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as phanerons; > and since I shall have no need of referring to any but those which (or the > like of which) are perfectly familiar to everybody, every reader can > control the accuracy of what I am going to say about them. Indeed, he must > actually repeat my observations and experiments for himself, or else I > shall more utterly fail to convey my meaning than if I were to discourse of > effects of chromatic decoration to a man congenitally blind. ... > > The reader, upon his side, must repeat the author's observations for > himself, and decide from his own observations whether the author's account > of the appearances is correct or not. (CP 1.286-287, 1904) > > > > Thanks, > > 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 6:10 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > > Continuing our slow read, here is the next slide of André De Tienne’s > slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu) > <https://peirce.iupui.edu/publications.html#presentations> site. (You > will notice André’s characteristic sense of humor here, but the last line > should be taken quite seriously.) > > Text: > > “Phaneroscopy”? What a strange word! Can it possibly mean anything? > > Is it really a science? How come I have never heard of it before? > > Can I get a Ph.D. in phaneroscopy? In what university? > > Are phaneroscopists well paid? Is their job useful and interesting? Does > it help save lives? > > Some say that Peirce did everything that needed to be done in > phaneroscopy, and that everything else is semiotics. Is that right? > > Is it true that phaneroscopists never assert anything true and yet never > lie? Are they post-truthists? [No! They are pre-truthists!] > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
