Jeff, Somewhere in there you passed from phenomenology to a species of introspective psychology that has no chance of becoming a science.
There is a difference between observing what is present to mind and articulating a theory of mind. I am pretty sure Peirce understood the difference, even if some styles of exposition and illustration that he used might obscure it. Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Oct 31, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Jon, Ben, Lists, > > Does phenomenology need hypotheses? Let's take one of Peirce's many > formulations of what we are doing when we engage in the kind of > phenomenological inquiry that he is recommending to us. Here is a > description of this science: "Phenomenology ascertains and studies the kinds > of elements universally present in the phenomenon; meaning by the phenomenon, > whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way." So, in doing > phenomenology, we are asking the following kind of question: are there some > elements that are universally present in the phenomena? Here are a series of > hypotheses: > > 1) Yes, there are such universal elements. > 2) There are three fundamental elements that are universal and necessary for > all possible experience. > 3) The matter of these elements can be understood to consist in three > categories: quality, brute fact, thought (pick your favorite term for the > last of the three) > 4) The form of these elements can be understood to consists in three basic > kinds of relationships: monadic, dyadic and triadic; or firstness, > secondness and thirdness (pick your favorite list) > 5) The material categories correspond, in some sense, to the formal > categories. > > What is the purpose of examining these elements more carefully and trying to > generate a theory about the character of each and how experience might be > composed of relations between these formal relationships? Well, there are > several related purposes. Let me point to a few that are prominent in my > mind. In a long discussion of the character of the observations we should > use for the sake of engaging in philosophical inquiry, where Peirce is trying > to explain how we should go about analyzing the phenomena that we need to > draw on for the sake of developing better explanations in th
----------------------------- 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 .
