Jack and Jon, I have been tied up with other commitments, which have prevented me from devoting any time to this thread. So I'm going back to one of the earlier notes to emphasiize a very important point: Phaneroscopy is prior to Semeiotic. The phaneron is raw experience. The only science that is prior to phaneroscopy is pure mathematics, which includes formal logic (e.g. uninterpreted existential graphs, for example).
JRKC: In understanding Kant's thing in itself, we must throw it [semeiotic] all away (suspend it until the noumena has been comprehended insofar as it can be). Peirce did not use the term 'noumena', but the phaneron would contain the uninterpreted mental experience. That would be the closest possible conscious experience prior to any interpretation in any preconceived signs JAS: Since all thought is in signs, we cannot discuss whether and how we understand or comprehend anything without invoking semeiotic. JRKC: You cannot usefully use Peirce to address the thing-in-itself (via semiotic formalisms) for it transcends the very notion of form. On this point, I disagree with Jon, and I would explain to Jack how Peirce might reply. To Jon, I would repeat that phaneroscopy is prior to semeiotic. In the trichotomy of mark, token, type, the mark is an uninterpreted pattern in some sensory modality. A token is an interpretation. Since pure mathematics is the theory of all imaginable (or even unimaginable) forms, there are uncountably many forms. That's more than enough to represent all possible physical marks -- outside or inside a human brain.. To Jack, I would say that Peirce considered phaneroscopy comparable to what an artist does by mapping imagery to painted or sculpted forms prior to any interpretation in preconceived signs. Since pure mathematics contains every possible theory of forms, any of them would be available for an artist t(or anybody else) to map it to a drawing, sound, or sculpture prior to an interpretation as a token of any preconceived symbol. It would also be sufficient for a computer attached to a system for producing physical objects to replicate many kinds of objects. Re salt, snail, poison: Repicating salt and poison is easy. But science today is very, very far from replicating a snail -- or even perceiving and recording all the details of a single cell of a snail. But I admit that the artist's uninterpreted form or the computer's recreation is not the "thing in itself". However, the totality of all possible views of an object in all possible sensory modalities could be sufficient to reconstruct many (non-living) objects that are indistinguishable from the originals. But they would not really be the originals. Conclusion: The century after Peirce has shown that Peirce's distinction of mathematics, phaneron, semeiotic is important for guiding and inspiring the cognitive sciences (philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology). That is a topic about which I have been writing an article for a book. Kant's distinction is interesting, and it is one of the many inspirations that have influenced Peirce and many others. His theory of phaneroscopy is an important branch of science that has come closer to the thing in itself than any others. But a replica that is indistinguishable from the original is not the original. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> Sent: 5/3/23 8:49 PM Jack, List: JRKC: In understanding Kant's thing in itself, we must throw it [semeiotic] all away (suspend it until the noumena has been comprehended insofar as it can be). Since all thought is in signs, we cannot discuss whether and how we understand or comprehend anything without invoking semeiotic. JRKC: You cannot usefully use Peirce to address the thing-in-itself (via semiotic formalisms) for it transcends the very notion of form. Again, Peirce explicitly and repeatedly denies that there is any absolutely incognizable thing-in-itself. You need to make a solid case for it, not just assume it (thus begging the question) and wave off his arguments against it (which I and many others find quite persuasive). JRKC: The noumenal is pre-consubstantiality even as consubstantiality is how we make sense of it. ... Except we know via consubstantiality/contiguity that it, the noumenal, necessarily is. These are just bare assertions. What exactly do you mean by "consubstantiality" and "contiguity" in this context? How does the reality of "the noumenal" necessarily follow from affirming them? JRKC: It is not possible to represent the thing in itself via form, or any means, because it goes before - our attempts to do so will always be wrong. Again, anything that is impossible to represent is unreal, a "metaphysical figment" (CP 5.312, EP 1:53, 1868). "[A]ll our conceptions are obtained by abstractions and combinations of cognitions first occurring in judgments of experience. Accordingly, there can be no conception of the absolutely incognizable, since nothing of that sort occurs in experience" (CP 5.255, EP 1:24, 1868). Also, "the absolutely incognizable is absolutely inconceivable ... for, since the meaning of a word is the conception it conveys, the absolutely incognizable has no meaning because no conception attaches to it. It is, therefore, a meaningless word; and, consequently, whatever is meant by any term as 'the real' is cognizable in some degree, and so is of the nature of a cognition, in the objective sense of that term" (CP 5.310, EP 1:51, 1868). JRKC: Quality of Element(Snail) = Value(Poison-to-Human[-of-Snail]). That is the semeiotic "standing for" schema simplified. I.e, Salt-Snail-Poison = Value(Poison-to-Human[-of-Snail]. No, that "equation" has nothing to do with the irreducibly triadic relation of representing. The real qualities of salt are what they are regardless of any representation, so they are completely unaffected by the "values" that humans (or snails) assign to those qualities. On the contrary, the purpose of inquiry is to align such assignments with the reality--in semeiotic terms, to conform our dynamical interpretants as closely as possible to the final interpretant, how the reality would be understood by an infinite community after infinite investigation. Moreover, savoriness to humans and poisonousness to snails are not essential qualities of salt in itself, they are relational qualities that depend on not only the chemical properties of salt, but also the biological constitutions of humans and snails. JRKC: We have no idea - no matter what anyone says - of how a snail perceives salt. So what? How a snail (or a human) perceives salt has no effect on the reality of the salt. After all, we routinely misperceive reality, but the scientific method of inquiry is intrinsically self-correcting such that by employing it diligently, we would eventually conceive reality accurately in the long run. JRKC: And all such are discursivities - which is why logic goes ahead of mathematics in every schema you've ever seen (epistemological). What exactly do you mean by "goes ahead of" in this context? For Peirce, mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions about hypothetical states of things, so it "comes before" all the positive sciences--including the normative science of logic as semeiotic, the science of drawing plausible (abductive/retroductive), probable (inductive), and necessary (deductive) conclusions about any states of things--in the sense that they depend on it for principles, not the other way around. JRKC: Q(uality) of E(lement) = derivation of V(alue) but never the thing in itself: (X). A representation - VALUE - of the thing which is never the thing in itself (X). Peirce never claims or implies that a representation of something is identical to that thing. On the contrary, he explicitly affirms that "really being and being represented are very different," and yet "The very entelechy of being lies in being representable" (EP 2:303&324, c. 1901). In short, really being entails being capable of being represented, and so far, your alleged "proof" does not come anywhere close to demonstrating otherwise. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 4:04 PM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <[email protected]> wrote: Jon, List Semeiotic is, however you define it, a schema for a series of relations between predicates (or qualities or whatever you want to call a classificatory schema). It is a formalism - to be frank. Now being a formalism the terms "dynamical object" and so on -- these are about as arbitrary as it gets. For they are "stand in" predicates for a given quality within a formal structure (semiotic). In understanding Kant's thing in itself, we must throw it all away (suspend it until the noumena has been comprehended insofar as it can be). Kant's noumenal/thing in itself is pre-form wherein the metaphysical may be of the physical but is always pre-physical. Pre-capacity to even understand form/content. That is what the noumena is (for humans). You cannot usefully use Peirce to address the thing-in-itself (via semiotic formalisms) for it transcends the very notion of form. The noumenal is pre-consubstantiality even as consubstantiality is how we make sense of it. It is not possible to represent the thing in itself via form, or any means, because it goes before - our attempts to do so will always be wrong. Except we know via consubstantiality/contiguity that it, the noumenal, necessarily is. So Salt-Snail-Poison Ignoring any formal terms, semeiotic or otherwise, it is best to restrict theses to the simplest terms possible. Quality/Element/Subject. To a physicist, perhaps all three are elements? That the "quality" of the "element" (salt) is "poison" to a snail, is the formal - semiotic - classifcation of the relation in its simplest possible form. That the Q of the E(s) is not poison to any other organism (or need not be) is the point. Thus, the essence of salt, as it is in itself, is proven (regardless of formal structure but via formal structure - as with Godel). Thus Q of E(S) = V(P-H[S]) but not [X]. To humans, always V(-X) (in itself, there, but not possible to represent). All mathematics/lexicals/sciences/logics produce a value within a formal relata (relational schema) which value is never the thing in itself (but we know the thing in itself necessarily is and is pre-form). That is as scientific as Semeiotic may ever be. But only if it understands the X restriction which enables its liftoff - the fallibilism upon which science is based and which Peirce always embraced - thus there should be no reticience in disregarding large chunks of Peircean terminology as that is what Peirce aimed for (semeiotic as science). Quality of Element(Snail) = Value(Poison-to-Human[-of-Snail]). That is the semeiotic "standing for" schema simplified. I.e, Salt-Snail-Poison = Value(Poison-to-Human[-of-Snail]. However, P-H[S] is necessarily not Poison to a Snail which in semiotic/formal terms is more like P(S[Sa]). The first has a human intermediary - we cannot pretend that this doesn't "count" (formal logic and mathematics will tell you that it does). Thus, what salt - as poison - is to a snail, in absentia of human understanding, cannot be the "same" thing (Reality or otherwise) as it is to a snail minus the human predicate. And this is only in logical terms - which occludes the fact that no animal understands such things via logic (of this lexical, received, variety, other than the human). We have no idea - no matter what anyone says - of how a snail perceives salt. We assume it is the same - or similar - as in "fire is hot" (Kantian objectivity 1.0) but similar, mutual threshold of understanding, is not the "same" (it cannot be, even from the biological point of view - it mightbe similar, but never the same, for the divergences among humans themselves tell us this with zero ambiguity: savoury for some, poisonous for others). Nor is it relativity, it is just true. Every single mathematical system ever derived partakes of precisely the same schema. Bar none. Formal relationships - genres if you like - which justify certain functions/operations within a given "habitus" (area of operational protocol - entirely habitual insofar as the numericals/etc go). And all such are discursivities - which is why logic goes ahead of mathematics in every schema you've ever seen (epistemological). This is why Russell derives a paradox and Godel derives incompleteness -- the terms are arbitrary discursivities (functional, yes, but not innate or universal in any sense -- consubstantiality may be universal, but no given terms used "with substance" to "map substance" is necessarily divine/universal). V(X), however, is universal in every sense but we cannot represent its existence in formal terms without missing the point. For example, V(X) explains Peirce's entire schema and continua (the result...) but Peirce's schema, in itself (not noumenal), cannot do the same thing. Q(uality) of E(lement) = derivation of V(alue) but never the thing in itself: (X). A representation - VALUE - of the thing which is never the thing in itself (X). Now, this can be formalized a million different ways but it never breaks. It's the simplest - insofar as I know - means of explaining formal logic relative to semiotic and the limitations/possibilities therein as it pertains to the noumenal proof. I know - as it goes - that for this to be a "proof" in the academic sense, I'd have to go further (but I just know it is proven and have been rather lazy of late - not very well). Happy to let others go at it - whether to falsify or prove. Jack
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
