Helmut, I take this 1905 quote to mean that although the contents of the pheneron do not always entertain a representative relation with an object (real thing, sic), we must accept the reality of the pheneron. In other words the reality of the phaneron does not depend on its representative relation.
With regard to your: Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. -- Indeed, each of the theoretical sciences concentrate on an aspect of semeiosis. Pheneroscopy on aspects that (with conciderable effort because of our habits of interpretation) can be adressed without invoking the questions of representation, truth, etc. And so, again, being concerned with questions obout objects like the phaneron that function pre-truth, does not mean they are unreal. That position comes down to mixing upo the object of the phaneron with the object of phaneroscopy. best, Auke > Op 19 juni 2021 om 13:32 schreef Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>: > > List > > Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from > the Commens Dictionary: > " > 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284 > > 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. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is > occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron. > > " > > Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of > multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible > explanations: > > 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a > merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other > possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons. > > 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due > to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable. > > I like number 1 better. > > Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it > corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that > it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be > semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific > method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct > science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, > phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" > helps to not miss something. > > Did I get everything ok? > > Best > > Helmut > > > > > 19. Juni 2021 um 11:33 Uhr > "Auke van Breemen" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > wrote: > > > > John, > > Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : > Three laws of Qualia. > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness > > > Auke > > > > Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" > <s...@bestweb.net>: > > > > > > Gary F> For me at least, �veracity� only applies to stories or > > propositions that are publicly verifiable. > > > > But a huge amount of information that we get every day is > > reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other > > sources. When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they > > rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what > > they did or saw. > > > > Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or > > truthful than others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually > > truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or > > embarrassing. > > > > For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are > > the only sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those > > reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive > > from brain scans. > > > > Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing > > the science of phaneroscopy. > > > > John > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > ► 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. > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
