Gary F., You wrote:
I’m not sure whether it’s the kind of analysis that other contributors to this thread have been suggesting, but it’s about as close as I can come, for now anyway. and: This was an attempt to begin with a Peircean phenomenological analysis of a text-as-phenomenon -- First an answer to your question. At the same time it is and it isn't what I had in mind. I start with the latter. I had in mind not (1) a-text-as-phenomenon, but (2) text-as-phenomenon. It's firstness consists in the series of feelings that co-determine the apprehension of the (symbol) sign as an object. Logic may abstract from that, but if we are going to phenomenology that is not longer the only way. At the same time, I think that the adequate categorical scaffolding, in principle, ought to be the same in both cases. For instance: In perception we fill in the blind spot, cf Ramachandran, Hirstein, Three laws of qualia: https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTLO-8.pdf in conception we immediately compensate for typo's as you probably did. The difference however is that in (2) we start with the manifold of sensuous impressions that must be brought to unity. While in (1), as you put it, we already have intellectual constructs. Turning to Gary R's original mail about the possibility to utilize meditation in phenomenological research, and having in mind his educational work in critical thinking, I would say that with meditation it is possible to guide (2), while critical thinking can be guided by (1). For us, I think, (2) always is involved in (1). Lets suppose humans extinct and an alien civilazation visiting earth finding your message. They would have to conclude that the message consists of legisigns before they are able to dig up the accompanying symbols and start their (library) search for the meanings you convey. Best, Auke van Breemen > Op 29 maart 2021 om 4:45 schreef [email protected]: > > > List, > > Just to give a concrete example, I’ll venture here a phenomenological > analysis of a paragraph of text that was posted to the list recently. You > will notice in this text the familiar phenomenon of cherry-picking quotations > to reinforce an argument, but the phenomenon I’d like to analyze here is less > common and less visible to the casual reader. Here’s the text, exactly as it > appeared on the list: > > And since matter-is-mind within Peircean analysis, then, this triadic > process is operative throughout the physical, chemical, biological and > conceptual realms. 'Matter is effete mind" 6.25. And "what we call matter is > not completely dead bu is merely mind hidebound with habits" 6.158. "he whole > action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61 > > Obviously the element of Thirdness is predominant in this item, as it is > in any text, especially a symbol composed of words. (It is also an > “intellectual construction,” to use a term that has occurred repeatedly in > this thread.) > > Its Secondness consists primarily in its reactivity to other actual texts > (i.e. Secondness to them), but also in its specific references directing our > attention to one of the texts to which it is Second, Volume 6 of the > Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce. These (shorthand) references are symbols > functioning indexically. > > Its Firstness is its ‘theme’ or unifying idea, which does not exist in > the strict Peircean sense until it is embodied. I’ll use “matter-is-mind” as > a shorthand for its verbal embodiment in this text. The next phrase, “within > Peircean analysis”, might represent the Firstness of the Secondness of this > text, as it presupposes the prior (and continuing) existence of a discipline > called “Peircean analysis” and situates matter-is-mind as characteristic of > that discipline, without giving us any further information about it. > > Now we can turn to the “less common and less visible” phenomenon which > occurs in this text. For that purpose I’ll begin with the indexical citation > at the very end of the text. If we actually look up the prior text it refers > to, we find it embedded in an 1892 text by Peirce entitled “The Doctrine of > Necessity Examined,” Peirce's attack on the determinism which was very much > in vogue at the time, and the article where he introduced his > anti-necessitarian doctrine tychism (see the introduction to CP 8 for > details). The paragraph cited in the text above, CP 6.61, begins with one of > many reasons Peirce gives for rejecting the doctrine of the necessitarians: > > “Necessitarianism cannot logically stop short of making the whole action > of the mind a part of the physical universe.” > > But in the text we are analyzing, this text is “quoted” as follows: "he > whole action of the mind [is] a part of the physical universe" 6.61. > > The missing first letter of “the” is just an ordinary typo, but the > “quote” as a whole exemplifies the phenomenon of misquotation. It not only > represents the original text inaccurately, it represents Peirce as asserting > an idea which in fact he was ascribing to the necessitarians, against whose > doctrine he was arguing. (The rest of Peirce’s paragraph goes on to explain > why that idea is untenable.) > > A further question arises when we focus on the Thirdness of this > phenomenon, because then we have to consider the interpretant of the text we > are examining (as well as its putative object, “Peircean analysis,” and the > idea which it predicates of that object, “mind-is-matter.”) If we take the > interpretant as the information conveyed to the reader, we ought to ask > whether this particular misquotation belongs to the species of misinformation > or disinformation. This distinction has become a matter of public debate > lately, especially in the U.S., where it makes a crucial pragmatic difference > whether a disseminated untruth is merely mistaken or was actually intended to > deceive. Donald Trump’s lies about the “stolen election” are a paradigmatic > example: were they “honest mistakes” (because he was himself misinformed) or > were they criminal acts intended to subvert American democracy? Should > disinformation sites be shut down by the social media platforms on which they > appear? > > The question is nowhere near so consequential in the case of the > misquotation we are analyzing, but it still makes a pragmatic difference. If > it was just an “honest mistake” on the writer’s part, an honest scholar would > own up to it when it was flagged, and perhaps correct it. But if it > deliberately misrepresented Peirce’s views as conforming to the writer’s own > idea, then it would be much more damaging to the scholar’s reputation for > trustworthiness, at least among those familiar enough with Peirce’s writings > to recognize the misrepresentation. And if that kind of “disquotation”, to > coin a term, emerged over time as a recognizable pattern in the writer’s > work, especially within a pattern of quoting only phrases out of context and > rarely whole sentences, trust would simply evaporate. > > This was an attempt to begin with a Peircean phenomenological analysis of > a text-as-phenomenon and develop it step by step into a semiotic (and > informational and pragmaticistic) analysis. I’m not sure whether it’s the > kind of analysis that other contributors to this thread have been suggesting, > but it’s about as close as I can come, for now anyway. > > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
