Jerry R, The slow read is not quite concluded: there are still two more slides to go. Slide 50 consists of a series of questions similar to the one you ask here; the last slide is a graphic showing ADT’s somewhat whimsical portrait of a science-egg (with its various parts labelled).
As for those questions, each reader of the list will have to come up with their own answers (or else leave the questions open). I’ve given some hints of my own answers along the way, and back in June I submitted a paper on the subject which is due to be published later this year as part of a collection edited by Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen and Mohammad Shafiei. Nothing has been said during the slow read that would persuade me to make substantial changes to that paper, so I’m content to let it speak for me. I wouldn’t have written such a paper if I hadn’t paid very close attention to Peirce’s writings that explicitly deal with phenomenology and phaneroscopy. Some of the most vociferous opinions expressed during the slow read came from people who consider themselves experts but obviously have not paid close attention to what Peirce said on the subject, and have even objected to Peirce’s writings on the subject being posted to the list (instead of his writings on mathematics, for instance). Some of these opinions were clearly motivated by a hostile reading <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/scp.htm#hxrd> of ADT’s slides. I think any readers who still have open minds regarding phaneroscopy owe it to themselves to at least read everything in EP2 on the subject, if not some of the harder-to-find texts like R 645 <https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm> (which is now on my website). If someone has paid close attention to the practice of phaneroscopy as described in concrete detail by Peirce, and has tried it out for himself (as Peirce insisted one must in order to draw any conclusions from it), then he can form and express a valid opinion about its scientific value (or lack thereof), as R.K. Atkins did in his book about it. I don’t believe that any opinions about it which aren’t based on such a study are worth arguing about. I also believe that opinions about Peirce’s philosophy which ignore his phenomenology/phaneroscopy are just as liable to distortion as opinions which ignore his mathematics or his semeiotics. I said in a previous post that phaneroscopy is pre-scientific. I don’t have a more direct answer to your question, so this will have to do. Gary f. } Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already enough names. One must know when to stop. [Tao Te Ching 32 (Feng/English)] { <https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Jerry Rhee Sent: 16-Sep-21 13:56 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
