Jerry C., List: JLRC: the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint. ... Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the usual sense of meaning. ... So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly referring" to phanerscopy is speaking for CSP ex cathedra.
Here again is the text in question. CSP: But preliminary to normative science, which is essentially *classificatory*,--stop to take that well in, I beg you, gentle reader,--there should be a *nomological *science, which shall make out all the different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how they can be varied and combined. This science I hesitate to call phenomenology after Hegel, for fear of marring his peculiar conception of it; and therefore, though I think it is essentially the same thing under a somewhat different aspect, I will name [it] *phaneroscopy*. It is the science of the different elementary constituents of all ideas. Its material is, of course, universal experience,--experience I mean of the fanciful and the abstract, as well as of the concrete and real. Yet to suppose that in such experience the elements were to be found already separate would be to suppose the unimaginable and selfcontradictory. They must be separated by a process of thought that cannot be summoned up Hegel-wise on demand. They must be picked out of the fragments that necessary reasonings scatter; and therefore it is that phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of mathematics. (R 602:12-13, SWS 243-244, 1906 per Bellucci 2020) In this paragraph, Peirce is specifically defining/describing "a *nomological *science" that, in accordance with the *logical *basis of his entire classification, should be "preliminary to normative science." Although it is very similar to Hegel's "phenomenology," Peirce prefers to give it the new name "phaneroscopy" because it studies the totality of whatever is or could be present to the mind in any way, which he elsewhere dubs "the phaneron." He also explains in other writings that "the different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is conceivably possible"--i.e., "the different elementary constituents of all ideas"--are 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. Peirce adds that these are not "found already separate," but "must be separated by a process of thought," namely, prescission of 2ns from 3ns and of 1ns from both 3ns and 2ns. He describes this as "pick[ing them] out of the fragments that necessary reasonings scatter," giving this as the reason why "phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of mathematics." He thus emphasizes not only the dependence of phaneroscopy on mathematics, but also the distinction of phaneroscopy from mathematics--the necessary reasonings of mathematics produce scattered fragments, from which phaneroscopy must pick out the three universal/formal categories. JLRC: One can image anything one wishes, but it seems relatively clear what the nature of realism is. ... could you search for some significant SCIENTIFIC arguments that address the structures of realism and addresses the foundational issues essential to a nomological science or realism? Realism is not germane to phaneroscopy because this science is only concerned with what *seems*, encompassing not just "the concrete and real" but also "the fanciful and the abstract." Within Peirce's classification, distinguishing the real from the fictional is instead a task for metaphysics, employing principles of the normative science of logic as semeiotic. JLRC: CSP held that chemistry was the ”bedrock” of his logical system As John Sowa has previously requested, "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations." Are there any texts where he *explicitly states* that chemistry is the "bedrock" of his logical system? If not, what is the basis for claiming that this was *his own *position? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:02 PM Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Jon: > > On Oct 25, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > In context, Peirce is plainly referring to phaneroscopy, so "the different > indecomposable elements" are simply 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. > > Jon: the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint. One can > image anything one wishes, but it seems relatively clear what the nature of > realism is. > > Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the > usual sense of meaning. > > The vagueness of the concepts 1 ns, 2ns and 3 ns in no way restrict the > meaning of sentence. > > Certainly, the terminology of the trichotomy can be read in terms of 1ns, > 2ns, and 3ns. > > So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly referring" to phanerscopy is > speaking for CSP ex cathedra. > > JLRC: Does the "enter into everything" quote refer to the Table of > Elements? > > > No, that is studied within the special science of chemistry, not > phaneroscopy. The quote refers to whatever is or could be present to the > mind in any way. > > The meanings of the attributes of matter and the coherence of natural > sciences and natural philosophy of the concept of elements are not > restricted. > Since CSP held that chemistry was the ” bedrock” of his logical system, > any wholistic notion would necessary relate to chemical abstractions. > > JLRC: It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological > science that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs? > > > No, those are studied within the normative science of logic as semeiotic, > not phaneroscopy. The "should" here is logical, not ethical. > > Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the grammar of “should”. > > In short, I find these comments disappointingly shallow, given the GRAVITY > of the assertion of the sentence. > > John: could you search for some significant SCIENTIFIC arguments that > address the structures of realism and addresses the foundational issues > essential to a nomological science or realism? > > Cheers > > Jerry >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
