Dear Sir, Your comments below are not only perfectly reasonable and specifically valid, but the conclusion, if I understand it, is that fundamentally not only are there ‘loose ends’ in general, but that Peirce and you both believe this is the ontological nature of things and will never chance. Not only do I agree, but what comes to my mind immediately about this fundamental inconclusiveness is the very strange nature of time which per se leaves everything at a loose end. Nothing can change nor determine time in how it works although, scientifically space and the logic being and nothingness can be defined and dealt with to a small degree as objective matters. The objective determination of time as far as it goes can produce obvious observations that none the less, when applied to matters that are supposed to stay the same at least ideally, when we factor in the ‘solipsism’ of the personal moment, this now that is the changing movement that is me, disqualifies anything as objectively stable or that the only stability or identity is change which disables every definition. It is as if, once we have grasped the fact that though every person’s perspective is different we grasp at least we have ‘differences inherent in perception’ at least as a solid and workable common conception. But time immediately destroys even the sameness in each individual as different from each other so you even have different perspectives within yourself of your self that is never ever at all in any way the same in any fashion which at least we could identify the commonality of the difference of perceptive views. The world does not hold together because it never ever held together before or conceivably in the future which, as future, has no existence. Even the past has a little more than that but not much more. “Man is a futile passion.” The man falls apart but the passion goes on. Regards, Gary Moore
From: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 7:42 AM Subject: RE: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION Gary M., Your reflections are very rich indeed but i only have time for a few comments today ... Yes, the Commens Dictionary is a wonderful online resource. [[ Peirce says, “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...” (Adirondack Lectures, CP 1.284, 1905) ... However Peirce’s concluding statement id disturbing for exactitude – “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”. ]] This baffled me at first ... my comment on it is in my online study of Peirce’s phaneroscopy, at http://www.gnusystems.ca/PeircePhenom.htm#phaner ... compatible with yours, i think. [[ MOORE: Would not a phaneron immediately cease to be a phaneron when we attempt to analyze it? Would that not immediately put it in the structure of language? ]] Well, analysis introduces a new element into the phaneron (using the word “element” more loosely than Peirce would), but it too is present to the mind. We can’t assume that language is coterminous with thought. Peirce always objected to the practice of drawing conclusions about logic or semiosis from the structure of language. [[ The phaneron makes no distinction in itself or an other. It is simply “all that is in any way or in any sense present to the [unspecified] mind” – would that be correct and in accord with Peirce’s ““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”? “I have found” is very fortuitous as if one just stumbled across it by accident. ]] I don’t see that implication in it. In Peirce at least, one usually finds by searching, or inquiry. But of course it’s what you were not looking for, the surprises, that are always most interesting in what you find. As Leonard Cohen sang, “There is a crack in everything – that’s how the light gets in.” But all of the normative sciences (as Peirce called them), including logic, are driven by the need for self-control. [[ We never in any path of knowing truly have the complete picture ... ]] Indeed! But if we are scientific inquirers in the full Peircean sense of those terms, we never cease trying to make it more complete ... to contribute what little an individual can to the “growth of concrete reasonableness.” [[ Where is the perfection at all to be found if “it cannot be at all minute”? Someone draws a right angle which every reasonable person says is perfect. Wittgenstein, let us say, being the typical unreasonable ‘reasonable’ person brings in a powerful microscope and puts the right angle under view. ]] Peirce remarked several times in different contexts that we can’t be sure that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is exactly 180°. Vagueness can never be eliminated, it’s always a matter of degree. Gary F. } Begin to forget it. It will remember itself from every sides, with all gestures, in each our word. Today's truth, tomorrow's trend. [Finnegans Wake 614] { www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
