Ben, lists, Ben, thanks for providing links to the heart of the discussion with Joe Ransdell on this topic. Reviewing it has been very helpful.
Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F., lists, > > It's not that Joe Ransdell simply saw no difference between phaneroscopy > and semiotics. It's that he had trouble understanding, among other things, > how phaneroscopy, as conceived as a science by Peirce, could work > successfully. > > Some posts on the subject: > > June 11,2009 from Joe R.: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/5644/focus=5650 > June 12, 2009 from Gary R.: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/5644/focus=5654 > June 12, 2009 from Joe R.: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/5644/focus=5665 > July 3, 2009 from Gary R.: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/5687 > July 4, 2009 from Joe R.: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/5687/focus=5691 > > That's not the whole discussion! But it's a start. > > Best, Ben > > On 11/30/2014 11:58 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > > "Firstness", "Secondness" and "Thirdness" are hypostatic abstractions. I'm > afraid those who can't see the difference between hypostatic abstraction > and prescission -- see *Natural Propositions* 6.10 -- are always left > "bending over backwards" to force Peirce's terms into their own prior > categories, because the *practice* of prescission eludes them. This > produces the kind of muddle that confuses semiotics with phaneroscopy, and > both with introspective psychology. > > The elements of the phaneron, which those hypostatic abstractions give > names to, are undiscernible in that muddle. Once you've made their > acquaintance, they are unavoidable; but words can't furnish that > acquaintance, and if your universe of discourse is totally verbal, I > suppose it's quite inaccessible. Perhaps some people, even some > accomplished philosophers and scientists, are constitutionally > (genetically?) unable to practice phaneroscopy -- even such a distinguished > Peircean as Joe Ransdell didn't see a difference between phaneroscopy and > semiotics! -- and there's no hope of understanding it without *practicing* > it. > > I guess one way of coping with the situation (of not knowing what Peirce > was talking about) is to argue that *Peirce* didn't know what he was > talking about. Unfortunately such arguments are impervious to experience, > and thus to logic as an experiential science (CP 7.526). > > gary f. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Brenner > Sent: 30-Nov-14 7:22 AM > > The Peircean semiotic doctrine could be made more acceptable, to me at > least, by the elimination of just one word - pure. I do not see, even in > its own universe of discourse, why Firstness and Secondness must be totally > disjunct. It is this that makes them, as Howard says, abstractions. > > A vague, semi-unconscious awareness of general aspects of existence is > something that can be experienced or observed but is qualitatively > different enough from everyday experience to justify (I am leaning over > backwards) the designation of Firstness. But there is no necessary > ontological 'boundary' between Firstness and Secondness. They are > inseparable categorial features of existence, one or the other of which is > (primarily) actualized or predominates in any real (cognitive) situation, > at the expense of the other. > > Joseph > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
