Le 17/10/2021 à 16:11, Robert Marty a écrit :
Cher Bernard, vous écrivez :
"I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be
cleared up independently of the question of classification of sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic
of the categories."
then my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the
logic of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the
mathematical repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the
relational structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the
phaneroscopic categories incorporating their interdependence
relationship; all in the well of the truth?
Bien cordialement,
RM
Thanks Robert,
You know that I think that the logic of the categories takes it reality
into the very mathematical organization that defines it. So my answers
to your question 1 and 2 are YES for both.
Yet I wrote the phrase you are quoting a little bit quickly.
I wanted to underline that to force the description of Phaneroscopy to
obey a preconceived (and hypothetical) classification of sciences is
taking the problem the wrong way round (like the discussion on the list
seems to have shown)
To have ready at hand a formal structure is one thing but using it in
situation is another one. If a metaphor is allowed here, having at
disposal a skeleton is necessary but to transform it into Frankenstein
is a challenge.
I always feel uneasy with the word "applied" even if it is used to
qualify "semiotics" itself.
Amitiés
Bernard
Le dim. 17 oct. 2021 à 12:03, Bernard Morand <morand.bern...@neuf.fr
<mailto:morand.bern...@neuf.fr>> a écrit :
John, List,
Le 16/10/2021 à 23:58, sowa @bestweb.net <http://bestweb.net> a
écrit :
I agree with ET. Most of the complaints seem to be generated by
three people (GF, GR, and JAS) who object to people who introduce
topics for which they have no canned answer. An example is my
note about phaneroscopy as a science egg. ADT had no explanation
for Peirce's remark. Somebody mentioned the attempt by Atkins to
broaden phaneroscopy.. But that attempt blurred the line between
phaneroscopy and normative science. When I observed that the
combination of phaneroscopy and normative science would be
equivalent to semeiotic, they refused to answer. /*These are very
important questions that need to be asked.*/ I am not
complaining. I am asking a question that gets to the heart of
Peirce's 1903 classification. (my emphasis)
I strongly agree with this statement from John.
I was surprised at first reading by the mixing of two topics in
the discussion about the ADT slides, a mix which he himself
posited in his presentation and which seemed to me as being
unnecessary.
I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to be
cleared up independently of the question of classification of
sciences.
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the
logic of the categories.
This is too much putting the cart before the horse.
Furthermore I wonder whether the Peirce's aim after 1903 was not
to compare the logical reality of the categories with the
observable facts of living signs, hence his strong interest for
his correspondence with Lady Welby.
If this was the case, something we would call today experimental
method, then the observation of living signs (phanerons) needs to
be conducted out of the categories schema and not vice versa.
So the matter of classification of phaneroscopy would have to come
after.
Coming back to the reading of ADT slides, what have we learned
from it on the List ? None of the initiators of the topic has
offered any insight into concluding remarks (at least as it
appears to me).
Regards
Bernard
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto: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
<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 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.
