Helmut, Auke, list, I think Helmut’s point is well taken (though perhaps a bit overstated): it’s very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who reacts so violently to a word (or other part of a sign) that they lose the ability to focus on the object of the sign or the subject under discussion. Consequently I don’t think either Jon or Edwina can be blamed for driving Cathy away from the discussion; neither of them could have guessed that their use of the word “embodied” would have such an effect on her.
Auke, I hope you don’t mind if I import your post from the other thread, because it does have a bearing on phaneroscopy. Here it is complete: [[ Jon, CP 1. 175 The reality of things consists in their persistent forcing themselves upon our recognition. CP 1.325 In the idea of reality, Secondness is predominant; for the real is that which insists upon forcing its way to recognition as something other than the mind's creation. This quote comes from your recent reponse to Edwina: CSP: That which any true proposition asserts is real, in the sense of being as it is regardless of what you or I may think about it. (CP 5.432, EP 2:343, 1905) And here we see what the relation is between propositions and reality. In short: Real is that what is independed of individual thought. And it is because of this independence of individual thought that we can talk about the truth of propositions. Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize. ]] GF: This is all accurate and to the point, except your last sentence. It is the predominance of Secondness that separates logic as a normative science from phaneroscopy, which for Peirce is a positive but not normative science. “Veracity” does not apply to it in the way it does to a proposition, because what is predominant in phaneroscopy is not Secondness but Firstness. CSP: Phenomenology treats of the universal Qualities of Phenomena in their immediate phenomenal character, in themselves as phenomena. It, thus, treats of Phenomena in their Firstness (CP 5.122, 1903). GF: The Firstness of Secondness is what Peirce called “dyadic consciousness.” But in phenomenology, we don’t talk about “what is independent of individual thought,” because the existence of individual thinkers does not appear in the direct consciousness of the phaneroscopist. That is why Peircean phaneroscopy pointedly ignores the differences between individual minds and treats all possible minds as one mind. CSP: Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron; and by the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds. (CP 1.284, 1905) CSP: I propose to use the word Phaneron as a proper name to denote the total content of any one consciousness (for any one is substantially any other), the sum of all we have in mind in any way whatever, regardless of its cognitive value. (EP2:362, 1905) GF: If you say this is unrealistic, you are exactly right. Reality is not an issue in phenomenology/phaneroscopy. The issue is the elements of the phaneron, also known as the “universal categories.” Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> > On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien Sent: 17-Jun-21 02:57 To: jonalanschm...@gmail.com <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> List, the term "red flag" is a red flag for me. When I hear or read it, I suspect people at work, who are not interested in a fair discussion, but in tribalistically separating the discussers in one group of the good ones, and one of the bad ones, identifying the bad ones due to their use of the wrong codes. I said "I suspect", to try to avoid the paradoxon of doing the same now. Though I know it sounds as if I am. That is because if once this sort of manichaeism is started, it is hard to stop. I am not completely against identity politics, but against essentialism. It originally is a rightist domain. Sadly, some leftists too do not pay enough attention that the defence of discriminated identity groups does not switch into essentialism. Best Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
