Gary R., Gary F., List: GR: For Peirce the consequence of this "mental preparation" was his positing Three Universal Categories.
GF: I don’t see that as an accurate description of what Peirce does in the text we are looking at. He is not “positing” anything there; rather, as he says, what he does is to “recommend that the hypothesis of the indecomposable elements of the Phaneron being in their general constitution like the chemical atoms be taken up as a hypothesis with a view to its being subjected to the test of an inductive inquiry.” What is the difference between positing the three Categories (1ns/2ns/3ns) and recommending the hypothesis that there are three indecomposable elements of the Phaneron (Priman/Secundan/Tertian)? It seems to me that those are just two different ways of saying the same thing, but maybe I am missing something, as admittedly tends to be the case when Peirce's Phenomenology is the topic of discussion. However, as you might imagine, I am looking forward to seeing the "texts from early 1906, which Peirce himself flagged as representing a major shift in his thinking about Existential Graphs and their connection with his brand of pragmatism." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:13 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > List, Gary R, > > Continuing from where we left off (EP2:364), Peirce is still doing the > abductive work of framing a hypothesis to be inductively tested by > observation of the phaneron. This time I’ll continue his text up to the > point where he says the work of observation can begin (EP2:366). After that > I’ll try to address some of Gary R’s objections to my comments on this > text. I do *not* recommend skipping or skimming over Peirce’s text to get > to my comments, which are really nothing more than footnotes to what Peirce > is saying here about phaneroscopy. > > [[ So far as our study has now gone, then, it appears possible that all > eiements of the Phaneron should be triads. But an obvious principle which > is as purely *a priori* as a principle well can be, since it is involved > in the very idea of the Phaneron as containing constituents of which some > are logically unanalyzable and others analyzable, promptly reduces that > subjective possibility to an absurdity. I mean the principle that whatever > is logically involved in an ingredient of the Phaneron is itself an > ingredient of the Phaneron; for it is in the mind even though it be only > implicitly so. Suppose then a Triad to be in the Phaneron. It connects > three objects, *A, B, C*, however indefinite *A, B*, and *C* may be. > There must, then, be one of the three, at least, say *C*, which > establishes a relation between the other two, *A* and *B*. The result is > that *A* and *B* are in a dyadic relation, and *C* may be ignored, even > if it cannot be supposed absent. Now this dyadic relation between *A* and > *B*, without reference to any third, involves a Secundan. In like manner, > in order that there may be a Secundan, so that *A* and *B* are in some > sense opposed, and neither is swallowed up in the other,—or even if only > one of them had such an independent standing, it must be capable of being > regarded as more or less determinate and positive in itself, and so > involves Primanity. This Primanity supposes a Priman element; so that the > suggestion that no elements should be Primans is absurd, as is the > suggestion that no elements should be Secundans. > > This same principle may be applied in the same way to any Tetradic > constituent of the Phaneron. But if we expect it to lead to an analogous > conclusion we shall find ourselves out of that dead reckoning. Suppose a > Tetrad in the Phaneron. Now just as the being of a Tertian consists > precisely in its connecting the members of a triplet, so that two of them > are united in the third, so the Quartanness of the tetrad will consist in > its connecting the members of a quaternion, say *A, B, C, D*, and in > nothing else. That is precisely its form. As the triad involves dyads, so > likewise does the tetrad. Let *A, B* be the objects of such a dyad. The > tetrad is more than a mere dyad for those objects. I mean that it not only > makes one of them determine the other in some regard, after the manner of > dyads, or,—to use the word which we are in the habit of using only in > reference to the more characteristic kinds of dyads, but which I will > extend for the nonce to all dyads, in order to call up my idea in the > reader's mind,—the tetrad not only makes *A* to “act” upon *B* (or *B* > upon *A*), but, like a triad, indeed as involving Tertianity (just as we > have seen that a triad involves Secundanity), it puts together *A* and *B*, > so that they make up a third object,— to continue my method of expression > by stretching the extension of terms, I might say, so that they “create” a > third, namely the pair, understood as involving all that the tetrad implies > concerning these two prescinded from *C* and *D*. Moreover the tetrad > involves a dyad, one of whose objects is this pair of *A* and *B*, while > the other is either *C* or *D*, say *C*. Here again the tetrad makes the > dyad more than a mere dyad, since it unites *C* to the pair of *A* and *B*, > and makes them create a new object, *their* pair. And finally it unites > this last pair to *D*. Thus, the entire function of the tetrad is > performed by a series of Triads; and consequently, there can be no > unanalyzable tetrad, nothing to be called a *quartan* element of the > Phaneron. Plainly, the same process will exclude *quintanity, sextanity, > septanity*, and all higher forms of indecomposable elements from the > Phaneron. > > To many a reader this reasoning will appear obscure and inconclusive. This > effect is due to the argument's turning upon such a complex of prescissive > abstractions; for an abstract concept is essentially indefinite. Now the > reader would not have been a reader of this paper unless he had had the > intellectual virtue of striving to give definite interpretations to > concepts. But it often happens that this virtue being coupled with a > particular natural turn of mind, breeds an intellectual vice, the bad habit > of dropping all lines of study which largely introduce indefinite concepts, > so that those who contract this habit never gain a proper training in > handling such concepts. This is by no means the only difficulty of > mathematics, which incessantly employs them, but it is perhaps the chief > reason why we find among particularly able professional men, and even among > thinkers, so many who are completely shut off from mathematics. But those > whom this demonstration fails to reach may find themselves convinced by the > facts of observation when we come to consider them. > > Some will ask whether, if every tetrad can be built up out of triads, it > must not be equally true that every triad can be built up out of dyads. The > reason has already been stated, namely, that nothing can be built up out of > other things without combining those other things, and combination is > itself manifestly a triad. But those who do not see the force of this > reason had better try to build up a chemical triad, that is, a connected > group with three free bonds, out of chemical dyads, while observing the law > of valency. > > Much might be profitably added to this preliminary *a priori* study; but > even with the greatest compression I shall cover too many of the valuable > pages of the *Monist*. We must hasten, then, to try how well or ill our *a > priori* conclusions are supported by the actual examination of the > contents of the Phaneron. Let us begin at once. ]] > > This is where we will pick up the thread next time. In response to my > previous post, Gary R objected to my comments about the scope of the term > “Phaneroscopy.” He proposed > > [[ a very different way of conceiving Peirce's Phenomenology than it > appears that you are. Using a trikon, this might be diagrammed: > > Phaneroscopy (purely observational; employs no logic) > > |>Trichotomic (employs a logica utens) > > Iconoscopy (employs a logica utens) ]] > > My reply was that the Peirce text I’ve been posting is all about the > logical analysis that *precedes* observation of the phaneron, which “appears > to contradict your [Gary R’s] position that ‘phaneroscopy’ employs no > logic.” Gary R’s reply to that was: “I have never suggested that a > phenomenologist observing the phenomenon should not have developed keen > "mental preparation" for those acts of observation. And I have clearly > stated in other threads that I think that the logic of mathematics is, in > fact, extremely important in phenomenology. … For Peirce the consequence of > this "mental preparation" was his positing Three Universal Categories.” I > don’t see that as an accurate description of what Peirce does in the text > we are looking at. He is not “positing” anything there; rather, as he says, > what he does is to “recommend that the hypothesis of the indecomposable > elements of the Phaneron being in their general constitution like the > chemical atoms be taken up as a hypothesis with a view to its being > subjected to the test of an inductive inquiry.” > > Anyway, Gary R apparently did not *intend* has statement to be an > accurate description of what Peirce is doing in this text; indeed, as he > says, he “had hoped for a* very* different thread on Phenomenology,” and > his statement about “positing Three Universal Categories” really belongs to > that *other* thread rather than this one. So I hope that will clear up > any confusion on that matter, and perhaps Gary R will start a separate > thread on “possible approaches to developing Peirce's Phenomenology > further.” In the meantime I’ll welcome any questions about the priman, > Secundan and Tertian elements of the phaneron, prescissive abstraction, or > any of the other concepts Peirce is working with above. > > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
