Gary R and Martin, i'm just now reading your posts in reply to the one i put up last week.
Gary, you focus on Merleau-Ponty's reference to the “mystery” inherent in “ipseity.” What this brings to my mind is not Heidegger, but rather Peirce's own reference to Secondness as “the being that consists in arbitrary brute action upon other things, not only irrational but anti-rational, since to rationalize it would be to destroy its being” (CP 6.342 <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/slc.htm#lvgntl> , 1907; that link leads to the context as quoted in Turning Signs). The rationality of science is in its Thirdness, of course, but the truth of a theory in positive science depends on the genuine Secondness, the inexplicably real existence, of the objects of its attention. That's why Secondness is predominant in Peirce's usage of the term “experience.” Some phenomenologists think that scientific explanation of phenomena reduces their “mystery,” but for Peirce, their genuine “anti-rational” Secondness is involved in the truth of a sound theory, not eliminated by it. Rationalization, on the other hand, would “destroy its being,” leaving the predicate of a proposition bereft of an ens reale to which it could really apply. Scientific reasoning is much more than rationalization because, as Martin says, it is inherently public. No valid proposition in science is merely “true for me”: if it is true, it is true for any suitably equipped observer of the phenomenon which is subject of its predicate. This is what enables a science to generalize without losing touch with experiential reality. That's why only a refutation of a theory can be logically conclusive, as both Popper and Peirce recognized. Confirmations can turn out to be rationalizations, even by people who are honestly trying to make their perceptual judgments “objectively.” But when some of the most powerful vested interests on the planet are determined to rationalize destructive public policies and corporate behavior based on denial of ecological reality, and have ways of using “social media” to do it, the practical result is the continuing degradation of the planetary life support system. The rise of the tech giants and surveillance capitalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism> in the 21st century is a major factor in humanity's failure to address, at scale, the present reality of ecological overshoot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot> . They tend to reinforce the “domineering” attitude of the dominant culture toward nature, as your source mentioned, Gary. GR: Have we already passed the tipping point where our attempt to master nature is leading to imminent ecological disaster? GF: The science shows that we are already breaking several of the “planetary boundaries” marking the limits of the “safe zone” for human activity. Even Netflix has shown this in several recent documentaries. Whether we have passed the tipping points where the damage becomes irreversible is hard to say, as the evidence of the future isn't in yet. But the trend is unmistakable. William Catton's Overshoot could have made this clear as far back as 1980, if anyone had been paying attention. But collectively on the global scale, we still appear to be ecologically blind. A new book on the subject by economist Peter A. Victor is entitled Escape from Overshoot, which seems optimistic, although it gives a factually realistic assessment of the present situation. It may still be possible to manage a gradual decline of human consumption and pollution patterns instead of a catastrophic collapse. I think Peircean semiotic is highly valuable for analyzing and understanding the role of communication media in this situation. They all deploy symbols, of course, and it's crucial to recognize that “Symbols are particularly remote from the Truth itself” (EP2:307 <https://gnusystems.ca/KainaStoicheia.htm#3f> ). But Peirceans also have to use symbols in order to communicate that insight, and the message is submerged in the flood of mis- and disinformation. It seems that no matter what people believe these days, however implausible to scientific (or even common) sense, they can find sources online that will reinforce their beliefs. Personally i'm not optimistic that semiotics can do much to reverse the trend of the Anthropocene. Maybe we can hope that human or posthuman survivors of the ongoing degradation of the planet will learn something from whatever is left of semiotic science. Love, gary Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg } The creature that wins against its environment destroys itself. [G. Bateson] { <https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> Turning Signs From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gary Richmond Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 6:10 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] the logic of vagueness [Note: I'd like to replace my earlier response to Gary Fuhrman's post with this one. The first was written in haste and, in fact, I'd forgotten I'd sent it as it was nothing but a rough draft of some of the ideas I wanted to reflect on. I hope that the present post will offer something of substance to discuss. GR] gary f., List, I'm sorry to have taken so long to respond, but I've been unexpectedly busy dealing with off List issues (plus a bout of Covid 19 -- I'm finally testing negative). Your post is such a rich cornucopia of ideas that I've decided to focus on just a short segment of it with some comments centered around the quotations by Merleau-Ponty, Peirce, and William James. I'll start with what amounts to little more than a paraphrase of the two quotations by M-P and Peirce which you juxtaposed. Merleau-Ponty remarks that our experiences are given as a unified whole with synthesis occurring, not because they express a fixed quality or identity, but because they are gathered together in an elusive 'ipseity'. Each perceived aspect of a thing only serves as an invitation to perceive beyond it. This leads to a continual process of perception [and of semiosis?] If it were possible for the thing to be fully grasped it would cease to be a thing since its reality lies precisely in that 'mystery' which prevents us from fully possessing it. On the other hand, Peirce's statement defines the real as that which maintains its characteristics regardless of our thoughts or perceptions. It suggests that the true nature of something is independent of our subjective interpretations or opinions about it. Even if people have diverse opinions regarding something, even if they want something to be different, its fundamental characteristics remain what they are. So while both excerpts emphasize the elusive nature of attempting to grasp reality within the limitations of human perception, both putting forth the idea that reality is not dependent on our thoughts or interpretations, Merlea-Ponty focuses on the continual process of perception and the 'mystery' surrounding the ipseity of things; while Peirce emphasizes the intrinsic independence of reality from human consciousness. There is certainly some considerable correspondence here, however. I have been a bit perplexed by M-P use of 'mystery' which always sounded rather too 'literary' for the topic. In a review of Bryan E. Bannon's, From Mastery to Mystery: A Phenomenological Foundation for an Environmental Ethic https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/from-mastery-to-mystery-a-phenomenological-foundation-for-an-environmental-ethic/ , Michael E. Zimmerman finds the source of M-P's notion of 'mystery' in Heidegger. Counseling attunement to the "mystery" of things, a mystery that techno-science cannot countenance, Heidegger surmised that modernity's one-dimensional understanding of being is only temporary. In a few centuries, he prophesized, the clearing may be altered, thereby making possible a non-domineering relationship between human Dasein [and nature]. This emphasis on the 'mystery' of nature challenges the idea of the "mastery" of nature. Bannon proposes that intertwining the views of Latour, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty "opens the possibility for us to experience certain kinds of feelings toward various human behaviors," feelings that might challenge the idea of mastery "by embracing nature's mystery." Perhaps my earlier parenthetical question as to whether 'continuous perception' ties up with 'continuous' (sometimes termed 'infinite' semiosis) might be worth exploring in this regard. Does continuous perception 'married' to continuous semiosis lead to this growth of human consciousness (in the sense that 'symbols grow') towards a better balance with nature? A related question (at least in my mind) is: Have we already passed the tipping point where our attempt to master nature is leading to imminent ecological disaster? That is, that we don't have the several centuries Heidegger suggested we needed. Be that as it may, I agree that, as you commented, the statements of M-P and Peirce are consistent with each other, however with a subtle difference of emphasis, M-P stressing the experience, Peirce the reality underlying the experience. And, yes, James offers a decidedly different, decidedly psychological take on the matter, emphasizing the fluid nature of knowing, suggesting that most of what we perceive and understand remains in a state of flux, never fully solidified or 'settled'. Rather, he highlights the tendency for most people to accept new experiences without often challenging or verifying them. Well, that also suggests to me something of the psycho-social reason why we may be approaching an ecological crisis: we accept technological advances willy-nilly, but question earth/ecological science. So, I'd be especially interested in thoughts on what role science, and philosophy (including phenomenology and semeiotic) might have to play in the current ecological crisis we find ourselves in. Best, Gary R
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
