Since there has been some discussion in other threads of the differences
between psychology, phaneroscopy and logic,
some readers may be interested in the context of the quotation from R 645
(1909) which occupies most of slide 38.
Here it is as published on pp. 328-9 of Kenneth Ketner’s book His Glassy
Essence (1998):
CSP: Three studies are needlessly and very unhappily confounded: Phaneroscopy
(as I call it, or Phenomenology),
Logic, and Psychology Proper. One of the three is a Science, though youthful
and immature; that is Psychology Proper.
One is an Embrio-science; so I rate Logic, because it still lacks that
considerable body of well-drilled workers
pursuing methods acknowledged by all, taking advantage of one another's
discoveries to push research still on and on,
and turning out new discoveries at a healthy rate; all of which I take to be
essential to a developed science. The
third is Phaneroscopy, still in the condition of a science-egg, hardly any
details of it being as yet
distinguishable, though enough to assure the student of it that, under the
fostering care that it is sure to enjoy,
if the human culture continues long, it surely will in the future become a
strong and beneficient science.
By Psychology Proper I mean the Empirical Science of the workings and growths
of Minds and their relations to the
animal or other organisms in which Psychical phenomena can be detected. In
short, it is a sort of Physiology of the
Soul. By Logic I mean the study of the distinction between Truth and Falsity,
and the theory of how to attain the
former together with all that the investigator of that theory must make it his
business to probe. It comes, in my
opinion, in the present state of science, to a study of the general nature of
Signs and the leading kinds of Signs.
By Phaneroscopy I mean the study of whatever consciousness puts into one's
Immediate and Complete possession, or in
other words, the study of whatever one becomes directly aware of in itself. For
such Direct objects of Consciousness
I venture to coin the term “Prebits.” Some may think this word would idly
cumber the dictionary in the unlikely
contingency of its ever coming into use. They will regard it as a superfluous
synonym of “appearances,” or
“phenomena,” “data,” etc., etc. I admit that “datum” might do. But then many
other things are called “data”; as for
the word “phenomenon,” I think that is better reserved to express those more
special meanings to which it is usually
restricted; as, for example, to denote any fact that consists in the uniformity
with which something peculiar and
perceptible to the senses (without or with instrumental aid) will result from
the fulfillment of certain definite
conditions, especially if it can be repeated indefinitely. Thus, the fact that
small bits of paper or anything else
that is light enough will be attracted to a rod of shellac, glass, vulcanite,
etc. provided this has just before been
briskly rubbed upon a soft surface of suitable material with a harder backing
is one single phenomenon, while the
fact that a rod of steel or of one of a few other substances will attract small
filings or other bits of iron, as
magnetite, etc. is a different single phenomenon. By a “Prebit” I do not mean
anything of that nature, but a single
Object of immediate consciousness, though usually indefinitely denoted. As for
the word “Appearance,” it would be
stretched in an inconvenient and quite unexpected way if it would be applied to
some of the objects I call Prebits.
Before he has read many pages the Reader will come upon an example that will
bring the truth of this home to him. In
the above Definition of “Prebit,” the adjective “Immediate” is not to be
understood in a Properly Psychological
sense, as if it were intended to exclude the case of my becoming aware of a
Prebit in consequence of becoming aware
of another thing, whether Prebit or not; but what I do mean is that once I do
become aware of the Prebit, I am aware
not merely before of a Sign Substitute for it, or any sort of proxy, vicar,
attorney, succedaneum, dummy, or
representative of it, but am put facie ad faciem before the very Prebit itself.
The importance of distinguishing between the three studies is due in the first
place to the diversity of their
general aims. Phaneroscopy asks what are the possibilities of consciousness.
Psychology deals with questions of what
we are directly conscious of, and involves very little or no reasoning. Logic
involves no more observation than Pure
Mathematics itself, and is entirely occupied with necessary reasoning. Logic
inquires into the theory of what must
follow or is likely, or a warrantable assumption in hypothetical cases.
Psychology reunites in itself all the methods
and all the difficulties of the other Empirical Sciences; it endeavors to make
known the positive facts of the
workings of the mind.
In the Second place, the methods of the three inquiries are as divergent as
their aims. In Phaneroscopy there is
little reasoning. Its questions are only settled by the finest of keen
observations. Logic on the other hand involves
no more observation than does Pure Mathematics itself, that is to say only the
observation of our own diagrams. It is
a science of reasoning and subtle distinctions. Psychology Proper again uses
all the methods and involves all the
difficulties of all the other Empirical Sciences.
For the purposes of the present essay, however, the most urgent reason for
distinguishing these studies from one
another, and more especially the two that are most apt to be
confounded,—Phaneroscopy and Psychology Proper,—is that,
on the one hand, Logic must be founded on the results of Phaneroscopy, so that
the Phaneroscopist has no right to
appeal to the science of logic; while on the other hand, Psychology Proper,
more than any other study, excepting only
metaphysics, depends for its support upon the science of Logic, in consequence
of which the Logician is forbidden to
appeal for support to Psychology Proper. Moreover, Psychology Proper, thus
mediately rests on Phaneroscopy and can
furnish no support to the latter. Still less can it question the latter's
results, which would be not more nor less
than sawing off the bough on which it is astride. [end CSP quote]
Gary f.
} Any analytical approach to understanding simplicity always turns out to be
very complex. [Howard Pattee] {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On
Behalf Of g...@gnusystems.ca Sent:
2-Sep-21 07:19
Continuing our slow read on phaneroscopy, here is the next slide of André De
Tienne’s slideshow posted on the Peirce
Edition Project (iupui.edu)
<https://peirce.iupui.edu/publications.html#presentations> site.
Gary f.
Text:
The collective Phaneron is streaming unstoppably and escapes description. But
not its component parts. Hence Peirce's
solution:
“Ingredients of the Phaneron” or “phanera” or even ...
By Phaneroscopy I mean the study of whatever consciousness puts into one's
Immediate and Complete possession, or in
other words, the study of whatever one becomes directly aware of in itself. For
such direct Objects of Consciousness,
I venture to coin the term ‘Prebits.’ ... Once I do become aware of the Prebit,
I am aware not merely before a Sign
of it, or Substitute for it, or any sort of proxy, vicar, attorney,
succedaneum, dummy, or representative of it, but
am put facie ad faciem (πρόσωπον πρὁς πρόσωπον) before the very Prebit itself.
(R 645, 1909 December 22)
