BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I don't find that Marty's critique of Belluci was 'adversarial'. It
filled in the missing critique of De Tienne, which was not critiqued
by this List.
Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have its own method and its
own procedures" [p 5] ?
Certainly, I didn't see these in De Tienne's outline, where
phaneroscopy seemed, to me, to be a kind of emotional campfire
explosion of open experience. What method? What procedure?
Does mathematics operate in this 'experience'? Or is it entirely
separate and 'left behind', as De Tienne seemed to suggest?
And if it 'depends of mathematics for principles' [JAS], then how
does this dependence actually function?
Houser's quotation, again, is"These categories, though abstractable
[prescindable] from experience are methamatical conceptions. ….
and phenomenology lies at 'the juncture' between the apriori
concepts of mathematics and the contingent world of experience'.
Therefore, it seems to me, that De Tienne's outline rests within
Belluci's outline, for both of them seem to view the Peircean
sciences as steps, where you simply leave the former one behind as
you climb the ladder.
Edwina
On Fri 01/10/21 9:25 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Robert, List:
I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is
indeed mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely
repeat what I have already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a
characteristic adversarial stance that is unwarranted since no one
here (including Bellucci) is "in favor of an extreme minimization of
mathematics or even its exclusion," nor are we seeking to "maintain a
mistrust towards mathematics and mathematicians."
Instead, like Peirce, we are simply distinguishing phaneroscopy from
mathematics, which does not entail disconnecting or separating
phaneroscopy from mathematics. Phaneroscopy depends on mathematics
for principles, but it is not controlled by nor reducible to
mathematics. In particular, an absolutely essential difference
between them is that phaneroscopy is a positive science, while
mathematics is a strictly hypothetical science. This is perfectly
consistent with Nathan Houser's conclusion that is favorably quoted
(twice) and which no one is disputing.
NH: These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from
experience, are mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness,
secondness, and thirdness constitute an important link between the a
priori world of mathematics and the contingent world of experience,
at which juncture we find the ground of phenomenology. (
https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience [1], p. 21)
On a more agreeable note, I appreciate the suggestion that
phaneroscopy should draw from not only formal logic as the first
branch of mathematics, but also its other two branches that have to
do with discrete series and continua. This is consistent with
something that Richard Kenneth Atkins highlights in his two papers on
"Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy" (
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001 [2],
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097 [3]), namely,
that the universal/formal categories are discrete and extensive, while
the particular/material categories are continuous and intensive. I
might share more in the future as I further digest them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [5]
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:20 AM robert marty wrote:
List,
Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
(DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci\'s paper. | robert
marty - Academia.edu [7]
also available on ResearchGate :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper
____________________________
Abstract :
The circumstances of the production of this critique show how
important it is for a community to have venues for debate that bring
together participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this
is not sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying
the precise circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it
as objectively as possible, arguing as clearly as I could,
scrupulously citing all my sources. I then drew some conclusions from
it, thanks to which it finds, it seems to me, its whole meaning.
__________________________
Regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [8]
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [9]
Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty a écrit :
List,
I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed
to me eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He
confirmed receipt. However, I did not get any answer on a list
characterized by particularly vigilant participants quick to react to
the slightest deviation. I reject the idea that they have concerted to
ignore my remarks because this would be an unworthy attitude on the
part of researchers, peirceans moreover. It would therefore be a
rare case on this list of approval by default. Besides, I remembered
a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot consent" (Who doesn't say a word,
consents). I am therefore entitled to consider today that my
criticism is fully recognized as fair and well-founded. This
encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this kind of
analysis of the relationship to mathematics to other eminent
researchers in the Peircean community.
Many thanks and best regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [11]
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [12]
Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty a écrit :
LIST,
I REMIND THE THREAD OPENED BY PHILLYS CHIASSON, ENTITLED "ANOTHER
PERSPECTIVE." IN THIS THREAD, GARY RICHMOND WROTE :
"I had a similar experience teaching undergraduate students in
critical thinking courses. I found that it doesn't take formal logic
-- although a bit of commonsensism seems requisite -- and soon the
simple, ordinary, naive observation of the phaneron (or whatever one
cares to call it) reveals that qualities, interactions, and
thought-signs are all that there is. One doesn't require the
reduction thesis, or valency theory, or mathematical logic, or graph
theory to see the trichotomic structure of the world." [emphasize
mine]
John Sowa answers him:
Have you ever seen a diagram and understood its implications? Have
you ever drawn a diagram to illustrate some point in your lectures?
If you did either of these two activities, you were using and
understanding a subset of graph theory. But if you want to get
beyond an eighth-grade education, doing a bit of studying helps a
lot. [emphasize mine]
I fully agree with this opinion. (RM)
Following Gary f intervene signaling another perspective :
"For another perspective on the roles of mathematics and logic in
phaneroscopic analysis, see Francesco Bellucci's 2015 paper at:
https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis
"
Gary Richmond immediately declared his enthusiasm for this text and
quoted several extracts.
"Thank you for posting this excellent short paper by Bellucci,
without doubt the best compact analysis I've read of "the roles of
mathematics and logic in phaneroscopic analysis."
I replied to GR that I did not share his enthusiasm for this text.
But it was an opinion. A real debate requires argumentation. So I
took the time to make a critical analysis of Belluci's paper
(attached file). It is part of a set of studies that I am making of
the main texts available in the literature about the bases of
phaneroscopy and the practices associated with them in the framework
of the Sciences of Discovery.
Although the text is short, I had to spend a lot of time on it. But
it also allowed me to show that there has been a strong movement in
the Peircean community for quite a long time in favor of an extreme
minimization of mathematics or even its exclusion. It is explicitly
admitted above by Gary Richmond.
In addition, I could situate my mathematical modeling of
Phaneroscopy and semiotics. Finally, two camps are emerging, as
defined by the ethnologist Claude Lévy-Strauss, after his successful
collaboration with the great mathematician André Weil: the
"bricoleurs" and the "engineers." This collaboration is refused for
reasons that belong to the sociology of research. They deserve a
separate study.
Best regards,
Robert MartyHonorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [14]
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [15]
Links:
------
[1] https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience
[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097)--the
[4] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'robert.mart...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
https://www.academia.edu/54543542/Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Bellucis_paper
[8] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[9] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'robert.mart...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[12] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
[13]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'robert.mart...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[14] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[15] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
