Gary F., List: As you know, I am very grateful to you and Gary R. for patiently helping me overcome my strong bent toward mathematics, logic as semeiotic, and metaphysics to grapple with the uniquely *phenomenological *aspects of time during our lengthy on- and off-List discussions about that topic, which ultimately resulted in my "Temporal Synechism" paper. I now have a much greater appreciation for how fundamental and pervasive phaneroscopy is in Peirce's entire philosophy, yet I can also appreciate how easily this can be and often is overlooked. After all, "facts that stand before our face and eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily discerned" (CP 6.162, EP 1:333, 1892). It requires "the faculty of seeing what stares one in the face, just as it presents itself, unreplaced by any interpretation, unsophisticated by any allowance for this or for that supposed modifying circumstance" (CP 5.42, EP 2:147, 1903).
Moreover, "Perhaps it is not right to call these categories conceptions; they are so intangible that they are rather tones or tints upon conceptions" (CP 1.353, 1885). Upon quoting this as an epigraph for his 2017 article, "The Tones, Tints, and Textures of Temporality: Toward a Reconstruction of Peirce’s Philosophy of Time" ( https://doi.org/10.3280/SF2017-003005), Vincent Colapietro adds in a footnote, "It may be the case that not only the categories themselves are tones and tints of conceptions (rather than fully realizable modes of conceptuality) but also especially effective means for identifying the most subtle tones, tints, and textures of phenomena themselves." I certainly found that to be the case in my own contemplation of time, and I now believe that it the right approach in general for exploring "theoretical issues and applications" of Peirce's categories. I also appreciate your recommendation of Champagne's book. I intend to take a careful look at it myself, especially since it is relatively short (121 pages) and a complete PDF is available online ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323672938_CONSCIOUSNESS_AND_THE_PHILOSOPHY_OF_SIGNS_How_Peircean_Semiotics_Combines_Phenomenal_Qualia_and_Practical_Effects). And thanks again for the link to your primer, which I heartily commend to anyone seriously interested in properly understanding Peirce's categories and employing them in their own inquiries. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 8:29 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ }{ 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.
