Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your answers. Here’s mine:
In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science, depends on multiple observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct observations of the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of “phanerons” when we consider what they are doing. We might say that each of these phanerons is a token of the generic phaneron, and each observer a token of the mind that the phaneron is present to. Here is the quotation again: [[ There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as phanerons; and since I shall have no need of referring to any but those which (or the like of which) are perfectly familiar to everybody, every reader can control the accuracy of what I am going to say about them. Indeed, he must actually repeat my observations and experiments for himself, or else I shall more utterly fail to convey my meaning than if I were to discourse of effects of chromatic decoration to a man congenitally blind. What I term phaneroscopy is that study which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed together that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list comprises all of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal subdivisions of those categories. ]] The reason that Peirce usually insists on the oneness of the phaneron (or phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472, 1913: [[ … what I am aware of, or, to use a different expression for the same fact, what I am conscious of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk, the ‘contents of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and the fact that I am conscious were two different facts, and as if the one were inside the other), this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is evidently the entire universe, so far as I am concerned.]] If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in Turning Signs 5: Inside Out (gnusystems.ca) <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/nsd.htm> . Gary f From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien Sent: 19-Jun-21 07:32 To: a.bree...@upcmail.nl Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 List Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from the Commens Dictionary: " 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284 Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron; and by the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron. " Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible explanations: 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons. 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable. I like number 1 better. Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" helps to not miss something. Did I get everything ok? Best Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
