Gary F. Are you suggesting that doing phaneroscopy is like doing a cartesian thought experiment? Eliminating everything, and building things up from absolute doubt, or, in your case, the unreal?
Auke > Op 19 juni 2021 om 14:33 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca: > > > AVB: I think I never had you. So how could I lose you? > > GF: I guess that’s right! I naively trusted that your question related to > the nature of phaneroscopy as Peirce defines it, and not to some metaphysical > issue which does not exist for phaneroscopy. > > > > Gary f. > > > > > > From: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@upcmail.nl> > Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06 > To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 > > > > I think I never had you. So how could I lose you? > > > > Auke > > > > > > Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca > > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca : > > > > Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you would > > mean by stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy professes > > to deliver its immediate object” — if you stated that in an earlier post, I > > must have missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to the proposition > > that “the dynamical object of the science is reality,” so I can’t guess > > whether it would be true or not. Peirce says that phaneroscopy is a > > “science,” not that the semiotic distinction between dynamic and immediate > > objects applies to it as if it were a sign, at least not in any text that I > > can recall. > > > > I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the universal > > categories “do not have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of > > any reality.” Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles from > > phaneroscopy, not the other way round. The object of attention in > > phaneroscopy is obviously the phaneron. I could say more about Peirce’s use > > of the word “object” in connection with phaneroscopy, and give some > > examples, but that probably wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll > > have to leave it at that. > > > > 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 Auke van Breemen > > Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38 > > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 > > > > > > > > Gary F., list, > > > > Nice summary of pheneroscopy. But that was not the issue. The > > issue was whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object > > of which phaneroscopy professes to deliver its immediate object), as I > > stated, or not. > > > > best, > > > > Auke > > > > > > > > > > Op 18 juni 2021 om 16:13 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca > > > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca : > > > > > > Auke, Gary R, list, > > > > > > For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or > > > propositions that are publicly verifiable. If I tell you about a dream I > > > had last night, I do so honestly if what I tell you is what I actually > > > remember; but lacking any independent observer of the dream (or of my > > > memory), I can’t claim veracity for what I tell you. I have no doubt that > > > the dream actually occurred and thus was real in that sense, but I have > > > no way to ascertain how the content of the dream relates to any reality > > > external to it; and that is the reality which might be definable as the > > > totality of facts expressible in true propositions. The phaneron includes > > > much more than that, including dreams, possibilities and so on. > > > > > > The focus of phaneroscopy on what appears precludes any > > > judgments about (metaphysical) reality or (logical) truth. Indeed, the > > > ability to discern the essential categories or “modes of being” of > > > whatever can appear is what generates the concept of reality in the first > > > place. Specifically, Peirce says that “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” (CP 1.325, R > > > 717). Logic and metaphysics have to develop their senses of truth and > > > reality from some method of observing and generalizing that does not > > > presuppose them, and that is what Peirce called phenomenology or > > > phaneroscopy. > > > > > > By the way, I’m using those terms almost interchangeably, > > > because I think Peirce’s decision to call it “phaneroscopy” in 1904 was > > > strictly a terminological change (he decided there were too many other > > > established uses of the term “phenomenology” already). Gary R’s post > > > yesterday suggested that as phaneroscopy develops beyond Peirce’s version > > > (as he expected it would), it may develop other “branches” or parts to > > > serve as bridges to other sciences such as semeiotics. Then the > > > researchers involved will have to make more terminological decisions > > > about what to call these branches or whether to call them “branches” of > > > phenomenology or phaneroscopy. In this slow read though, all we’re trying > > > to do (so far) is to try to develop a clear and distinct idea of what the > > > science is that Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy. > > > > > > I hope this helps … > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Auke van Breemen > > > Sent: 18-Jun-21 08:36 > > > To: > > > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary, List > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > “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. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > In my non native estimate the word veracity applies to > > > stories. Maybe honest or single minded would have been a better choice. > > > > > > But, I didn't claim that it does apply in the same way as > > > propositions. And, I did apply it to the excercize. > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue is the elements of the phaneron, also known as the > > > “universal categories.” > > > > > > -- > > > > > > yes, but to what end should we delve them up if they do not > > > have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of any reality? It > > > makes me wonder what your conception is of reality. The totality of facts > > > expressible in (trutfunctional) propositions? > > > > > > best, > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 17 juni 2021 om 14:05 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca > > > > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca : > > > > > > > > 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 mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > > > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > > > l...@list.iupui.edu mailto: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 mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > > l...@list.iupui.edu mailto: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 mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > l...@list.iupui.edu mailto: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.
