anything I’ve said
> is in conflict with anything Peirce said on the subject.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 09:18
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
>
Breemen
Sent: 19-Jun-21 09:18
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Gary F.
Are you suggesting that doing phaneroscopy is like doing a cartesian thought
experiment? Eliminating everything, and building things up from absolute doubt,
or, in
t;
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
> To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
>
>
>
> I think I never had you. So how
Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?
Auke
Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>
:
Auke, I’m afra
on with phaneroscopy, and give some examples, but that probably
> wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll have to leave it at that.
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:3
Breemen
Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Gary F., list,
Nice summary of pheneroscopy. But that was not the issue. The issue was
whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object of which
phaneroscopy
y to develop a clear and
> distinct idea of what the science is that Peirce called phenomenology or
> phaneroscopy.
>
> I hope this helps …
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of
em “branches” of phenomenology or
> phaneroscopy. In this slow read though, all we’re trying to do (so far) is
> to try to develop a clear and distinct idea of *what the science is* that
> Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy.
>
> I hope this helps …
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
is* that
> Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy.
>
> I hope this helps …
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu *On
> Behalf Of *Auke van Breemen
> *Sent:* 18-Jun-21 08:36
> *To:*
> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Sl
Sent: 18-Jun-21 08:36
To:
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Gary, List
I wrote:
Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize.
--
You wrote:
“Veracity” does not apply to it in the way it does to a proposition, because
what is predominant in phaneroscopy is not Secon
Gary, List
I wrote:
Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize.
--
You wrote:
“Veracity” does not apply to it in the way it does to a proposition, because
what is predominant in phaneroscopy is not Secondness but Firstness.
--
In my non native estimate the word veracity applies to stories
Helmut, Auke, list,
I think Helmut’s point is well taken (though perhaps a bit overstated): it’s
very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who reacts so violently to a
word (or other part of a sign) that they lose the ability to focus on the
object of the sign or the subject under discussi
Gary R., List:
CT: As I was contemplating whether or not I was in the right place by
having joined the list, someone then used the term embodied, and that made
my mind up for me. . The term 'embodied' is now a red flag for me."
GR: I may have used it in commenting on Merleau-Ponty, but I do
Edwina, List,
Edwina wrote: Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and
gives their reason for leaving with a critique - and instead of examining
why she left the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique - you
turn her comments into a rather vicious attack on me.
GR: What
Dear list,
Before getting swept away by the emotional content of what is *here*,
perhaps we ought to apply this method of phaneroscopy,
(which we run up the flagpole and salute),
to ourselves,
as he himself would see himself if he could duplicate himself and observe
himself with a critical ey
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and gives
their reason for leaving with a critique - and instead of examining
why she left the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique -
you turn her commen
Edwina, List,
Edwina wrote: "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of
it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked."
What do *you* mean that her critique of the List "should not be
overlooked"? What *I* think should not be 'overlooked' is outlined in what
I write below.
I
List
I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it
[Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked.
Edwina
On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Jon AS, list,
I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves in
Jon AS, list,
I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into Peirce’s
classification of sciences, as I think that will explain what André means by
saying that phaneroscopists are “pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some of the
ideas floated in the other thread show what happen
19 matches
Mail list logo
