Gary F, Martin, List, I've been taking an informal self-refresher course on Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology this week and had nearly completed a draft response to Martin's message when your compelling and thought-provoking message arrived. I'll finish that draft post and send it off in the next couple of day, but I wanted to immediately respond to your post, Gary, since I think you highlight an important, even essential idea in Peirce's semeiotic and metaphysics regarding 2ns, one that can be easily neglected as 'obvious'. Well, I suppose it is obvious once it's been articulated clearly and succinctly.
You wrote regarding "the 'mystery' inherent in Merleau-Ponty's 'ipseity'."* GF: What this brings to my mind is [. . .] 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. *(Peirce's own term is *hæcceity*, not quite a synonym for *ipseity*, I think.) We've been repeatedly reminded in the literature that Peirce's philosophy differs from Hegel's (but not only Hegel's) by its insisting that 2ns must be given its full weight in science, notably in semeiotic and metaphysics; and that while 2ns may have been 'discovered' in phenomenology, its pragmatic importance isn't realized until we've come to those later sciences. As you point out, if we are seeking the 'truth' of a theory, then 2ns must be involved or there is no "*ens reale* to which it could really apply." That is, 2ns refers to the 'matter' of which we seek the Truth regarding. While I'll try to say more about this in my Merleau-Ponty themed post (possibly not until part 2), I'm beginning to see that M-P offers an essentially subjective phenomenology in "*Phenomenology of Perception,*" and that it is not until his late work, including and especially "*The Visible and the Invisible,*" that he puts forth an ontology which leaves room for the social, for the community. Perhaps all I should say for now is that he doesn't emphasizes community in his philosophical work, although some of his political writings do to some extent. As both you and Martin have emphasized, scientific work "is inherently public," it is the work of scientists in scientific communities (formal or informal) sharing their hypotheses, methodologies, their experiences and experimental findings. GF: 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. [A bit off topic: At this juncture the question arises in my mind as to what extent phenomenology has a peculiar place in Peirce's science, that pure phaneroscopy (as I understand it) seems to be a kind of pre- or proto-science. My own stated view is that the phaneroscopic (or, pure observational) part of phenomenology represents only the first phase of a science not much developed as such by Peirce by his own admission. Still, he placed it as First Cenoscopic Science in his classification of the sciences so, I believe, he imagined that it *could* be developed into a full-fledged science. However, all that is a topic for an altogether different discussion.] I want to briefly turn to your remarks, Gary, on the socio-ecological crises we find ourselves in, the consequence, as you put it, of the rationalization of "destructive public policies and corporate behavior based on denial of ecological reality" by those who have the political-economic power to use such tools as "social media" to foster "the continuing degradation of the planetary life support system." While I am aware of some of the literature surrounding this, I know that you have actually been seriously studying these de-volutional practices and tendencies for years now, Gary. Terms such as surveillance capitalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism> and ecological overshoot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot> are entirely new to me, so I'll have to look further into these tendencies of the Anthropocene to have a clearer sense of current thought on this crisis (thanks for the links). I share your pessimism as to the fate of humanity -- the fate of the Earth -- while I also agree with you that "Peircean semiotic is highly valuable for analyzing and understanding the role of communication media in this situation." Of course semeiotics -- all communication -- requires symbols, and symbols are "remote from the Truth itself" (CSP). Still, we must use the tools we have, and the signs and symbols of semeiotic (*man* himself being a symbol) along with the* body* as M-P conceives of it as "the link between the physical and the cultural world" (Sean Dorrance Kelly, "Merleau-Ponty on the Body") are pretty much all we've got. Thank you for your most stimulating post, Gary. Perhaps I will try to address some of your other ideas related to the logic of vagueness. Best, Gary R Sans Serif Send On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 8:21 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > 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/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > > > *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> *On > Behalf Of *Gary Richmond > *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2024 6:10 PM > *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *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 > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 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.
