Hi Jerry, I remember that ... because I was not familiar with the term “wind-egg” and had to look it up ... one meaning being an unfertilized egg ... and though I thought that just a little bit snarky at the time, I know you meant it in the nicest possible way ... and now I'd have say it makes a kind of sense if I view in light of my usual first approximation to Peirce's Calcification Of Sciences (COS), to wit, the following Fig.
Peirce Syllabus https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg For without the fertilization by Mathematics the Oöscience of Phaneroscopy will forever remain an armchair wannabe science. Cheers, Jon On 9/16/2021 1:55 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
Dear Gary, list: Since the slow read has concluded, I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial announcement (on June 11). “My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption that Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg. That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily) and not systematically- as a true science.” So now, what is your judgment? What is the verdict? *Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?* ___ If, as Peirce says * Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, * * hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, * * though enough to assure the student of it that … * *it **surely** will in the future become a strong and beneficent science.* (R 645:2, 1909) And if, as Gary says * In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) * * Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls * * “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” * * The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, * * when it comes to making crucial decisions, * * we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” * * rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories..* I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously. That is, it is *impossible* for me to believe a man, who puts himself forth genuinely *as logician*, that he would *prescribe* such an immature belief. That he *has* the belief is not surprising, but there is something *obvious* that is missing here. For have you forgotten the old decree? Believest thou that he there spake the truth? Why dost thou believe it?" The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra." But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled. -- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he, least of all the belief in myself. But granting that some one did say in all seriousness that the poets lie too much: he was right —WE do lie too much. Moreover, when Peirce admits *in all the works on pedagogy that ever I read,- and they have been many, big, and heavy,-* *I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of teaching by practical jokes.. * *That however, describes the method of our great teacher, Experience. She says* * Open your mouth and shut your eyes* * And I’ll give you something to make you wise;* Would you be prepared to do this action because Peirce said “*Believe me!*’? Would you want Experience to keep her promise- to take her pay in the fun of tormenting us? I mean, *what was our experience during this slow read*? As to what is missing, * A Little Known Argument for the Being of God* * A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God* That. is (~CP 2.116), *We know **already** how we must proceed * in order to determine* what the meaning of the question is. * *Our sole guide must be the consideration of the use to which the answer is to be put * *--not necessarily the practical application, * *but in what way it is to subserve the summum bonum. * *It is absolutely impossible that the word "Being" should bear any meaning whatever * *except with reference to the summum bonum..* *We sketch out the method and apply it to a few metaphysical conceptions, such as Reality, Necessity, etc. * *(And then CP 5.53)..* *Everybody** should be competent to answer that of himself..* (I would recommend looking up this section, “Everybody..”, on page 161, edited by Turrisi in *Method of Right Thinking. * There is an interesting framing there in bold, which is not present in Collected Papers. Hope that helps!) With best wishes, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 8:08 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:Continuing our slow read on phaneroscopy, 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. *Conclusion: Phaneroscopy as a “science-egg”* Gary f. Text: Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to assure the student of it that ... it surely will in the future become a strong and beneficent science. (R 645:2, 1909) We need to remember that, for Peirce, sciences are living activities conducted by living communities of inquirers. Sciences get born and die. Their classification is actually akin to a natural classification. In many ways Peirces classification is phylogenetic in character.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
