Dear JAS, list:
You said: ..principles, they should be recognized and treated as fundamental principles of *every *science (except pure mathematics). Peirce's preferred term for "subsumption" was "involution" and Robert Marty's is "presupposition," but whatever word we use for it, that notion *needs* to be maintained whenever we discuss or apply the three categories. To which, I say, Now if they say that these things are presupposed by *everybody*, I oppose to that the fact that *I* do not presuppose them. If they say they *ought* to be presupposed, in the first place, they cannot say definitely how, and in the second place, I offer a proof which, if not demonstrative, is very *strong*, that there can be no argument establishing such an ought. For the dialogue form contains very heterogeneous elements; Philosophy proper in the treatment of absolute Being, and, intermingled with that, its particular mode of representation. Moreover, the philosophic Idea is, however, something utterly different, and instead of being possessed by, it possesses a man. Do you ask me to prove this? If so, you must be a *rationalist*, indeed. I can prove it -- but only by assuming a logical principle of the demonstration of which I shall give a hint in the next lecture.† *Now let us turn to the phaneron and see what we find in fact.* With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:36 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F., Andre, List: > > I am generally not a fan of "me too" posts and try to avoid sending them > myself, but in this case I believe that the following statements bear > repeating and cannot be emphasized enough. > > GF: [T]he Peircean categories are not a set of three separate bins into > which we sort things or parts of processes. They are irreducible elements > all of which are present (in varying proportions) in *every* phenomenon > in the universe of discourse. And they are ordered not serially but > subsumptively, so we have to *prescind* the Secondness of a phenomenon > from its Thirdness, and its Firstness from its Secondness. > > > I will even go so far as to suggest that since these are fundamental > principles of phenomenology/phaneroscopy, and since all other sciences of > discovery in Peirce's classification depend on phenomenology/phaneroscopy > for their own principles, they should be recognized and treated as > fundamental principles of *every *science (except pure mathematics). > Peirce's preferred term for "subsumption" was "involution" and Robert > Marty's is "presupposition," but whatever word we use for it, that notion > needs to be maintained whenever we discuss or apply the three categories. > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:32 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gary, thanks for posting Andre’s impromptu letter on “phaneroscopic >> analysis” to the list (and to Andre for giving permission to do that). It >> offers some good explanations both of what this practice is (and isn’t), >> *and* of why it’s so hard to describe. We can give some suggestions as >> to what to do, as I did in *Turning Signs* (sometimes without calling it >> “phaneroscopy” — in Chapter 2 <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm#trans> for >> instance), but the core practice itself isn’t really *observable*, not >> even by introspection. That makes it difficult to design replicable >> experiments! Lately I’m thinking that “training” in the practice would have >> to be something like guided meditation, with the guide acting as a mentor. >> Then it could be usefully correlated with observables such as brain >> activity (as in Francisco Varela’s “neurophenomenology”). >> >> For those of us who learn mostly by reading and writing, I think >> description or explanation of the actual practice is more like an art than >> a science. One has to give a peculiar twist to ordinary language now and >> then (as Andre did a few times in his piece.) My own favorite artist in >> this respect is Dogen Zenji, whom I quote in my book for that purpose. Once >> Peircean category theory has emerged from the practice of phaneroscopy and >> iconoscopy, then the logic of science takes over and we can apply them to >> classification of signs or whatever. But that logic can go astray if we >> forget that the Peircean categories are not a set of three separate bins >> into which we sort things or parts of processes. They are irreducible >> elements all of which are present (in varying proportions) in *every* >> phenomenon in the universe of discourse. And they are ordered not serially >> but subsumptively, so we have to *prescind* the Secondness of a >> phenomenon from its Thirdness, and its Firstness from its Secondness. >> >> I don’t suppose I’m saying anything original here, so I might as well >> stop. I don’t have much to say about the applications of Peircean category >> theory anyway, so I’ll leave that to you (Gary and Andre) and others who >> have taken it much further than I have. >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> } (Stoop) if you are abcedminded, to this claybook, what curios of signs >> (please stoop), in this allaphbed! [*Finnegans Wake* 18] { >> >> 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.
