Gary F, List, The email you just posted came through fine.
I recall JAS also having to reverse the white-text thing in one of your posts. What I did to correct it was to copy your white (invisible text) to a fresh email draft and then use the text/background function on gmail to have the text register black. I don't know if that would work for you as a test. Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 1:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for fixing that up, Gary. I’m still baffled by this white-text > thing, because it never comes back to me from the list that way, and in > this case the quotes were not copied from TS but from another file that is > *not* formatted white-on-black. Strange. I hope this post doesn’t come > out reversed! > > > > Gary f. > > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 19-Jun-21 12:40 > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 > > > > Gary f, List, > > > > I like your answers better too, Gary, much better; but your quoted text > arrived on the List as blank spaces, likely because of your reverse type > color (white on black) in your book, *Turning Sings*. Here's the text as > I darkened it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Not-G-man > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 > To: <[email protected]> > > > > 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>. > “Let everything happen to you > Beauty and terror > Just keep going > No feeling is final” > ― Rainer Maria Rilke > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Helmut Raulien > *Sent:* 19-Jun-21 07:32 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *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 > [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > [email protected] 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. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.
