Dear Jon, list,
Thank you for this note ("I know you meant it in the nicest possible
way..").
I believe *that* is the only meaning for 'wind-egg' that I know or have
ever heard of..
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I remember that ... because I was not familiar with the term “wind-egg”
> and had to look it up ... one meaning being an unfertilized egg ... and
> though I thought that just a little bit snarky at the time, I know you
> meant it in the nicest possible way ... and now I'd have say it makes
> a kind of sense if I view in light of my usual first approximation to
> Peirce's Calcification Of Sciences (COS), to wit, the following Fig.
>
> Peirce Syllabus
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg
>
> For without the fertilization by Mathematics
> the Oöscience of Phaneroscopy will forever
> remain an armchair wannabe science.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon
>
> On 9/16/2021 1:55 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> > Dear Gary, list:
> >
> >
> > Since the slow read has concluded,
> >
> > I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial
> announcement
> >
> > (on June 11).
> >
> >
> > “My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption
> that
> >
> > Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.
> >
> > That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy
> >
> > merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily)
> >
> > and not systematically- as a true science.”
> >
> >
> > So now, what is your judgment? What is the verdict?
> >
> >
> > *Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?*
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> >
> > If, as Peirce says
> >
> > * Phaneroscopy is 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 … *
> >
> > *it **surely** will in the future become a strong and beneficent
> science.*
> > (R 645:2, 1909)
> >
> >
> > And if, as Gary says
> >
> > * In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) *
> >
> > * Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls *
> >
> > * “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” *
> >
> > * The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, *
> >
> > * when it comes to making crucial decisions, *
> >
> > * we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” *
> >
> > * rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical
> theories..*
> >
> >
> > I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously.
> >
> > That is, it is *impossible* for me to believe a man,
> >
> > who puts himself forth genuinely *as logician*,
> >
> > that he would *prescribe* such an immature belief.
> >
> >
> > That he *has* the belief is not surprising, but there is something
> *obvious*
> > that is missing here.
> >
> > For have you forgotten the old decree?
> >
> >
> > Believest thou that he there spake the truth?
> >
> > Why dost thou believe it?"
> >
> >
> > The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra."
> >
> >
> > But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.
> >
> > -- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he,
> >
> > least of all the belief in myself.
> >
> >
> > But granting that some one did say in all seriousness
> >
> > that the poets lie too much: he was right
> >
> > —WE do lie too much.
> >
> >
> > Moreover, when Peirce admits
> >
> >
> > *in all the works on pedagogy that ever I read,- and they have been many,
> > big, and heavy,-*
> >
> > *I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of teaching by
> > practical jokes.. *
> >
> > *That however, describes the method of our great teacher, Experience.
> She
> > says*
> >
> >
> > * Open your mouth and shut your eyes*
> >
> > * And I’ll give you something to make you wise;*
> >
> >
> > Would you be prepared to do this action because Peirce said “*Believe
> me!*’?
> >
> >
> > Would you want Experience to keep her promise-
> >
> > to take her pay in the fun of tormenting us?
> >
> >
> > I mean, *what was our experience during this slow read*?
> >
> >
> > As to what is missing,
> >
> > * A Little Known Argument for the Being of God*
> >
> > * A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God*
> >
> >
> > That. is (~CP 2.116),
> >
> > *We know **already** how we must proceed *
> >
> > in order to determine* what the meaning of the question is. *
> >
> > *Our sole guide must be the consideration of the use to which the answer
> is
> > to be put *
> >
> > *--not necessarily the practical application, *
> >
> > *but in what way it is to subserve the summum bonum. *
> >
> >
> > *It is absolutely impossible that the word "Being" should bear any
> meaning
> > whatever *
> >
> > *except with reference to the summum bonum..*
> >
> >
> > *We sketch out the method and apply it to a few metaphysical conceptions,
> > such as Reality, Necessity, etc. *
> >
> > *(And then CP 5.53)..*
> >
> > *Everybody** should be competent to answer that of himself..*
> >
> >
> > (I would recommend looking up this section, “Everybody..”, on page 161,
> >
> > edited by Turrisi in *Method of Right Thinking. *
> >
> > There is an interesting framing there in bold, which is not present in
> > Collected Papers. Hope that helps!)
> >
> >
> > With best wishes,
> > Jerry R
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 8:08 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> *Conclusion:
> >> Phaneroscopy as a “science-egg”*
> >>
> >> Gary f.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Text:
> >>
> >> Phaneroscopy is 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 ... it surely will in the future become a strong and
> >> beneficent science. (R 645:2, 1909)
> >>
> >> We need to remember that, for Peirce, sciences are living activities
> >> conducted by living communities of inquirers. Sciences get born and die.
> >> Their classification is actually akin to a natural classification. In
> many
> >> ways Peirces classification is phylogenetic in character.
> >>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
