Jon, List,
 
It always is good, I agree, to have in mind the epistemic gap, or like Uexkuell, the distinction Umwelt- Merkwelt- Wirkwelt: subjective environment, perceived world (= phenomenological world?), world of by the subject applied effects. You said, that the phenomenological world "consists only of whatever is or could be present to the mind, which is not to say that it is confined to "human experience."". If it was a confinement, we would have no access to reality. But we have, via hypotheses. I think, Karl Popper said, that a hypothesis can never be verified, only falsified, and it  has to be falsifiable, otherwise it would not be a valid hypothesis. Then the epistemic gap would not be bridged, but shut down, because our only way to peer across it (to look at reality) is by hypotheses. In sciences, the hypotheses (abductions) are not verified, but piece by piece possible falsifications are excluded (induction). Though of course deductions play a role in sciences too,  the premisses these deductions are based on are merely products of inductions, so not 100% confirmed.
 
Best, Helmut
13. März 2021 um 02:23 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Gary F., List:

Thanks for providing a direct link to your excellent primer on Peirce's distinctive practice of phenomenology/phaneroscopy/phenoscopy. The last term is new to me, and unfortunately an online search reveals that a "Phenoscope" is now being used in biology for performing large-scale experiments with small plants to ascertain "how genetic diversity shapes phenotypic variation" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23452317/). In any case, your poetic opening is reminiscent of this passage in "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God."
 
CSP: If one who had determined to make trial of Musement as a favorite recreation were to ask me for advice, I should reply as follows: The dawn and the gloaming most invite one to Musement; but I have found no watch of the nychthemeron that has not its own advantages for the pursuit. It begins passively enough with drinking in the impression of some nook in one of the three Universes. But impression soon passes into attentive observation, observation into musing, musing into a lively give-and-take of communion between self and self. ...
So, continuing the counsels that had been asked of me, I should say, "Enter your skiff of Musement, push off into the lake of thought, and leave the breath of heaven to swell your sail. With your eyes open, awake to what is about or within you, and open conversation with yourself; for such is all meditation." It is, however, not a conversation in words alone, but is illustrated, like a lecture, with diagrams and with experiments. (CP 6.459&461, EP 2:436-437, 1908)
 
As you note, unfortunately many of us jump all too quickly and easily from contemplating the appearances to formulating and applying theories about the reality underlying them. I am aware that I myself tend to slip into logic, semeiotic, and metaphysics. Others always seem to go straight to the special sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology that study "material entities" or their psychical counterparts like linguistics. In accordance with Peirce's classification, exploring how his "categories function in the real world" properly falls within these fields, not phenomenology/phaneroscopy/phenoscopy. Some even conflate "our physico-chemical and biological worlds" with "the phenomenological world," persistently failing to recognize that the latter consists only of whatever is or could be present to the mind, which is not to say that it is confined to "human experience."
 
Regards,
 
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
 
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:04 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

When the subject of Peirce’s “categories” arises, the discourse always seems to jump directly into theoretical issues and applications. Even in published studies there seems to be little discussion of the practice of phenomenology or phaneroscopy (or phenoscopy, the term Peirce introduced in the Century Dictionary). But I agree with Jon Alan that this practice, and especially the practice of prescission, is the experiential basis of whatever we can say about Peirce’s “categories” or “formal elements of the phaneron.”

I have accordingly tried to draft a short introductory-level ‘manual’ for this practice: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/pheno.htm. (This is now incorporated as the “Presign” into Turning Signs, as its introduction to Thirdness leads into some basics of semiotics.) Of course it’s possible that someone else has done something like this, perhaps done it better, somewhere on the Net, and if anyone knows of such a text I’d appreciate notification of it. Meanwhile I’d welcome any discussion of my attempt on the list, with a view to improving or expanding it.

Gary f.

} I want to ask the meaning of spring's coming, but even the plum blossoms do not know. [Dogen] {

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to