Thanks for your comments, Jon!
What I posted yesterday was only the first few pages of R 645. Reading the rest
of it yesterday, I realized that it reveals quite a lot about the theory and
practice of Peirce’s phaneroscopy, that it has not been published in the
standard primary sources, and that I couldn’t find a complete transcription of
it on the web. So I made one and put it on my website: How to Define
(gnusystems.ca) <https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm> . (“How to Define” is
Peirce’s title for it, which is interesting in itself.) I highly recommend it
to those who wish to clarify the concept of phaneroscopy by reading Peirce
himself rather than peirce-l posts and other secondary sources. It also
includes some autobiographical asides— perhaps the reason why Ketner included
most of it in his “Autobiography of Charles Sanders Peirce,” His Glassy
Essence— which are relevant to his own practice, both of phaneroscopy and
writing.
Gary f.
} Now listed to one aneither and liss them down and smoothen out your leaves of
rose. [Finnegans Wake 101] {
<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 Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 2-Sep-21 18:27
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 38
Gary F., List:
CSP (bolded below): The importance of distinguishing between the three studies
is due in the first place to the diversity of their general aims.
As I have said before, this is the basic idea underlying Peirce's entire
classification of the sciences--they are distinguished by their different
purposes. It is not a matter of how people identify themselves, professionally
or otherwise, but of what they are seeking to learn by embarking upon a
particular inquiry. Someone framing pure hypotheses, and then drawing necessary
conclusions from them, is acting as a mathematician. Someone observing whatever
is or could be present to the mind in any way, and then analyzing it into its
irreducible elements, is acting as a phaneroscopist. Someone exploring the
distinction between truth and falsity, along with the theory of how to attain
the former and avoid the latter, is acting as a logician. Someone investigating
the actual workings of embodied minds is acting as a psychologist.
CSP (bolded below): Phaneroscopy asks what are the possibilities of
consciousness.
This is precisely why I have deliberately adopted the habit of describing the
phaneron as whatever is or could be present to the mind in any way. Moreover,
as Edwina has rightly pointed out, phaneroscopy is not just concerned with our
individual human minds, but with mind in Peirce's much more general sense. In R
645 (1909) as quoted at length below, he equates "consciousness" with this
broader notion of unmediated presence to the mind--immediate consciousness
rather than self-consciousness or cognitive consciousness, feeling/primisense
rather than altersense or medisense (CP 7.540-551, c. 1896), 1ns rather than
2ns or 3ns. From this standpoint, in accordance with Peirce's tychism, even
individual atoms are "conscious" or "sentient," albeit to a very small degree
(CP 6.201, 1898).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
