Claudio, Edwina, Dan, Jon Alan, list,
Claudio’s and Jon’s work on semiotic/logic, Edwina’s on physical dynamics
(along with her metaphysical presuppositions), and Dan’s work in linguistics
are all examples of what I meant by “theoretical issues and applications” of
Peircean categories. Jon may be the only one who understood this, so I thought
I should clarify the point. What I consider “the experiential basis of whatever
we can say about Peirce’s ‘categories’” is the practice of what he called
“phenomenology” in the first and third parts of his 1903 “Syllabus” (CP 1.186,
EP2:267-72). That’s what my post yesterday, and my text at
https://gnusystems.ca/TS/pheno.htm are about; at the moment I don’t have
anything to say about the various theoretical issues and applications, so I’ll
leave that discussion to others.
I should however mention Marc Champagne’s book Consciousness and the Philosophy
of Signs which I’ve been reading lately. So far I think does an excellent job
of showing how Peirce’s logic as semiotic is grounded in the phenomenological
analysis and the practice of prescission from which the concepts of Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness emerge. The primacy of phenomenology in philosophy
(including semiotic/logic) is affirmed in Peirce’s 1903 classification of the
sciences (EP2:258 ff.), and that’s one reason why I tend to think that those
who ignore it are missing something basic, and often end up bending or twisting
the categorial concepts into a shape that suits their preferred applications
better than Peirce’s phenomenological writings.
A few years back I tried to assemble a collection of Peirce’s texts on the
phenomenological categories, but had to give up when I saw how pervasive they
are in his voluminous texts on logic and semiotic. That’s why I tried to write
a brief introduction to them that wouldn’t be overloaded with quotations from
Peirce. I’d like to thank Jon for his comments on my attempt, and would be
grateful for others.
Gary f.
} We may come, touch and go, from atoms and ifs but we're presurely destined to
be odd's without ends. [Finnegans Wake 455] {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 12-Mar-21 20:23
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Categories and Semeiotic
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
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:04 AM <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/index.html> , 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
