Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings about Semeiotic (was Readings about Phaneroscopy)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET: But one cannot define reality as only 'that which is true' ...


Here is how *Peirce *defines reality.

CSP: The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. (CP
5.407, EP 1:139, 1878)

CSP: By a *reality*, I mean anything represented in a true proposition.
(NEM 3:773, 1900)

CSP: That which any true proposition asserts is *real*, in the sense of
being as it is regardless of what you or I may think about it. (CP 5.432,
EP 2:343, 1905)

CSP: That which is such that something true about it is either true
independently of the thought of any *definite *mind or minds or is at least
true independently of what any person or any definite individual group of
persons think about that truth, is real. (SS 117, 1909)

CSP: To say that a thing is Real is merely to say that such predicates as
are true of it, or some of them, are true of it regardless of whatever any
actual person or persons might think concerning that truth.
Unconditionality in that single respect constitutes what we call Reality.
(EP 2:456-457, 1911)


Just as I said, "The dynamical object of every true proposition is reality."

ET: But phaneroscopy is concerned with the appearances of reality ...


Here is how *Peirce *defines phaneroscopy.

CSP: This must be a science that does not draw any distinction of good and
bad in any sense whatever, but just contemplates phenomena as they are,
simply opens its eyes and describes what it sees; not what it sees in the
real as distinguished from figment--not regarding any such dichotomy--but
simply describing the object, as a phenomenon, and stating what it finds in
all phenomena alike. (CP 5.37, EP 2:143, 1903)


CSP: It will be plain from what has been said that phaneroscopy has nothing
at all to do with the question of how far the phanerons it studies
correspond to realities. (CP 1.287, 1904)

CSP: Phaneroscopy is the description of the *phaneron*; and by the *phaneron
*I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense
present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real
thing or not. (CP 1.284, 1905)


CSP: I use the word *phaneron *to mean all that is present to the mind in
any sense or in any way whatsoever, regardless of whether it be fact or
figment. (CP 8.213, c. 1905)


Just as I said, "Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of
phenomena at all, only their appearances."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:58 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> 1] Auke wrote that 'the dynamical object of science is reality'. This is
> not the same as what JAS wrote, "The dynamical object of every true
> proposition is reality,"  I think it's a logical conclusion that science is
> focused on reality; whether the conclusion of the research is true or not -
> is another issue. But one cannot define reality as only 'that which is
> true', for such an assertion would deny the semiosic interactions of people
> with their environment and reduce these interactions to ..what...myths?
> Imaginary?...unless these interactions provided evidence that the
> Interpretant was a truthful interpretation of the DO?
>
> And in response to:Auke's comment of: "If you were right, the different
> sciences would be concerned with different realities.". JAS wrote:"
> Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at all, only
> their appearances;"
>
> But phaneroscopy is concerned with the appearances of reality - and this
> reality can't be different among the sciences.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Wed 16/06/21 10:31 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Auke, Edwina, List:
>
> AvB: The dynamical object of science is reality.
>
>
> The dynamical object of every true proposition is reality, but as De
> Tienne's slide 4 (posted yesterday) hints at the very bottom,
> phaneroscopists are "pre-truthists." Again, the subject matter of
> phaneroscopy is whatever is or could be present to the mind, including
> imagination and hallucination.
>
> AvB: If you were right, the different sciences would be concerned with
> different realities.
>
>
> Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at all, only
> their appearances; that is what differentiates it from metaphysics. It is
> also not limited to the study of signs, but examines any and every kind of
> phenomenon; that is what differentiates it from semeiotic.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Auke, list
>>
>> Exactly. Splitting up areas into separate domains might give one
>> the feeling of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science, namely,
>> reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected immediate 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Gary R., List:

CT: As I was contemplating whether or not I was in the right place by
having joined the list, someone then used the term embodied, and that made
my mind up for me.  .  The term 'embodied' is now a red flag for me."

GR: I may have used it in commenting on Merleau-Ponty, but I don't just now
recall.


For the record, there were three posts yesterday that included the term
"embodied," and none of them were yours.

JAS: In accordance with CP 2.276 (quoted below), I understand "hypoicon" to
be Peirce's term for any *embodied *sign that is *primarily *iconic, a
sinsign/token that represents its object by qualitatively resembling it and
does not otherwise indicate what that object is.

JAS: These are distinctions between different classes of hypoicons--images,
diagrams, and metaphors, respectively--rather than having anything to do
with distinguishing a hypoicon from an icon. Again, my understanding of the
latter is that a hypoicon is simply an *embodied *iconic sign.

ET: Firstness doesn't function per se but refers to an interactional
stimulus that has to be *embodied*, as a 'mode of being', even though it is
completely without awareness or consciousness. ..which would bring in
Secondness.


Cathy did not disclose which of these (perhaps all of them) she found so
problematic, but Peirce himself frequently employs "embodied" or
"embodiment"--a total of 63 times in CP. That being the case, why would
anyone who is genuinely seeking to understand and apply his thought
consider it to be a "red flag," let alone evidence supporting the
allegation that "Plato and Descartes influences" are "a little too
entrenched here"? I asked Cathy off-List first thing this morning if she
would mind elaborating on what she meant by that on-List remark, and she
replied that she would do so "as time permits," but so far I have not
received any further clarification.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:31 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Edwina, List,
>
> Edwina wrote: Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and
> gives their reason for leaving with a critique  - and instead of examining
> why she left the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique - you
> turn her comments into a rather vicious attack on me.
>
> GR: What vicious attack? The thrust of my earlier post was this: "It is
> you [Edwina] who keeps making the claim that certain members of the List
> express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have not been
> able to support that claim because it is empty and patently false." It is
> your comment, "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of
> it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked," which prompted my
> response. What 'critique'? She didn't support reason -- such as it was --
> with any explanation, argumentation; she didn't cite messages which had led
> her to that view, etc. And so, I decided *not *to overlook why she left
> so abruptly after such a promising start.
>
> Edwina: Instead - you should be asking HER what SHE sees as Cartesian and
> Platonic, and what she sees as confined - since SHE is the one who made
> those statements. Have you asked her? Why do you think she thought this
> way?  Or are you just brushing her off as you do with me?
>
> GR: (1) I did indeed ask her to expand on why she decided to leave the
> List in several off List exchanges today (see brief excerpts below); (2) I
> didn't "brush her off" at all. What a weird and, if not exactly 'vicious',
> certainly baseless and untoward thing to say. And I don't believe anyone
> else has ever accused me of being vicious (I am *not* vicious) -- it
> seems to me that making such accusations is *your* way of dealing with
> virtually any criticism coming your way; (3) I don't "brush you off" and,
> my engaging you in this exchange is an expression, if not exactly, proof of
> that. I do tend to disagree with you on many phenomenological, semeiotic,
> pragmatic, and metaphysical positions you've taken on the List, while I
> find that it is you who tends to dismiss out of hand the ideas of mine and
> those of certain other members of this List, you who *angrily* "brush
> off" certain others, especially when they disagree with you.
>
> GR: As for her off List comments on why she decided to leave the List,
> Cathy wrote, in part, that her "perspective about Plato and Descartes
> being too entrenched in what I have read of the 'list' is not influenced *by
> anyone other than Peirce*." When asked to explain that last phrase a bit
> further, Cathy wrote:
>
> CT: As I was contemplating whether or not I was in the right place by
> having joined the list, someone then used the term *embodied*, and that
> made my mind up for me.  .  The term 'embodied' is now a red flag for
> me."
>
> GR: I may have used it in commenting on 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, List,

Edwina wrote: Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and
gives their reason for leaving with a critique  - and instead of examining
why she left the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique - you
turn her comments into a rather vicious attack on me.

GR: What vicious attack? The thrust of my earlier post was this: "It is you
[Edwina] who keeps making the claim that certain members of the List
express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have not been
able to support that claim because it is empty and patently false." It is
your comment, "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of
it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked," which prompted my
response. What 'critique'? She didn't support reason -- such as it was --
with any explanation, argumentation; she didn't cite messages which had led
her to that view, etc. And so, I decided *not *to overlook why she left so
abruptly after such a promising start.

Edwina: Instead - you should be asking HER what SHE sees as Cartesian and
Platonic, and what she sees as confined - since SHE is the one who made
those statements. Have you asked her? Why do you think she thought this
way?  Or are you just brushing her off as you do with me?

GR: (1) I did indeed ask her to expand on why she decided to leave the List
in several off List exchanges today (see brief excerpts below); (2) I
didn't "brush her off" at all. What a weird and, if not exactly 'vicious',
certainly baseless and untoward thing to say. And I don't believe anyone
else has ever accused me of being vicious (I am *not* vicious) -- it seems
to me that making such accusations is *your* way of dealing with virtually
any criticism coming your way; (3) I don't "brush you off" and, my engaging
you in this exchange is an expression, if not exactly, proof of that. I do
tend to disagree with you on many phenomenological, semeiotic, pragmatic,
and metaphysical positions you've taken on the List, while I find that it
is you who tends to dismiss out of hand the ideas of mine and those of
certain other members of this List, you who *angrily* "brush off" certain
others, especially when they disagree with you.

GR: As for her off List comments on why she decided to leave the List,
Cathy wrote, in part, that her "perspective about Plato and Descartes
being too entrenched in what I have read of the 'list' is not influenced *by
anyone other than Peirce*." When asked to explain that last phrase a bit
further, Cathy wrote:

CT: As I was contemplating whether or not I was in the right place by
having joined the list, someone then used the term *embodied*, and that
made my mind up for me.  .  The term 'embodied' is now a red flag for
me."

GR: I may have used it in commenting on Merleau-Ponty, but I don't just now
recall. In any case, I guess that is that; especially as it seems to me
that 'embodiment' is a concept hard to avoid in consideration of certain
areas of philosophy. And I do not at all see what makes references to
"embodiment" particularly Platonic or Cartesian.

Edwina: As for the Cartesian/Platonic ideologies - well, we've been through
that with the rejection of hylomorphic objective idealism - which posits NO
primordial laws but a correlation of the two.

GR: Yes, we've been through *that* again and again; and if Peirce's own
clear arguments in numerous quotations haven't convinced you, well
certainly those of us who take Peirce at his word (e.g. see: W 8:105-6; CP
6.24-5) haven't a chance. But is this alleged "rejection of hylomorphic
objective idealism" all you've got to claim that some here hold
"Cartesian/Platonic ideologies"? There's *got* to be more.

ET: How odd; you have set up a trio, yourself, JAS and Gary F, as some kind
of contained 'set' on this list.

GR: How odd that you should say that as I have done nothing of the sort.
JAS, Gary f, and I worked with Andre De Tienne to develop the current slow
read. We occasionally work together because we are interested in
and respect the work of each other and, so, have been known to collaborate
on projects together, cite each other's work, etc. None of this makes us a
dogmatic set of three, for both on and off List we both agree and disagree
with each other on various matters, have our own independent ideas and
work, etc. As we proceed in our slow read I think it is very likely that
you'll find us disagreeing on any number of points.

Edwina: But there are others in the field of Peircean semiotics - who DO
want to see how it operates pragmatically.

GR: Not one of this supposed triadic 'set' that you've imagined isn't
keenly interested in semeiotic and pragmatism. On the other hand, the slow
read is principally concerned with phaneroscopy and not semeiotic,
especially at this point in the discussion.

 Edwina: And they shouldn't be treated viciously.

GR: No one is being treated viciously in this forum: you are *not* a
victim, Edwina. In fact when I, as List moderator, have seen that 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Differential Logic

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Differential Logic • Discussion 4
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/06/16/differential-logic-discussion-4/

Re: Peirce List
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-06/thrd4.html#00078
::: Mauro Bertani
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-06/msg00109.html


About Lobe Connective and Node Connective and their consequences,
I have a question:

You say that genus and species are evaluated by the proposition (a, (b),(c)).

The following proposition would no longer be appropriate:  a (b, c).

And another question about differential calculus:

When we talk about A and dA we talk about A and (A)
or is it more similar to A and B?


Dear Mauro,

The proposition (a, (b),(c)) describes a genus a divided into species b and c.

The proposition a (b, c) says a is always true while just one of b or c is true.

The first proposition leaves space between the whole universe and the genus a
while the second proposition identifies the genus a with the whole universe.

The differential proposition dA is one we use to describe a change of state
(or a state of change) from A to (A) or the reverse.

Resources
=

• Logic Syllabus ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )
• Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )
• Minimal Negation Operators ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Minimal_negation_operator )
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,


Before getting swept away by the emotional content of what is *here*,

perhaps we ought to apply this method of phaneroscopy,

(which we run up the flagpole and salute),

to ourselves,

as he himself would see himself if he could duplicate himself and observe
himself with a critical eye.


I mean, *everybody* knows what Cathy meant by her farewell, *already*,
amirite?


“Thank you so much, but I'm finding some Plato and Descartes influences to
be a little too entrenched

here.”


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:04 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and gives their
> reason for leaving with a critique  - and instead of examining why she left
> the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique - you turn her
> comments into a rather vicious attack on me.
>
> Instead - you should be asking HER what SHE sees as Cartesian and
> Platonic, and what she sees as confined - since SHE is the one who made
> those statements. Have you asked her? Why do you think she thought this
> way?  Or are you just brushing her off as you do with me?
>
> As for the Cartesian/Platonic ideologies - well, we've been through that
> with the rejection of hylomorphic objective idealism - which posits NO
> primordial laws but a correlation of the two. .
>
> How odd; you have set up a trio, yourself, JAS and Gary F, as some kind of
> contained 'set' on this list. But there are others in the field of Peircean
> semiotics - who DO want to see how it operates pragmatically.  And they
> shouldn't be treated viciously.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 16/06/21 3:33 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List,
>
> Edwina wrote: "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique
> of it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked."
>
> What do you mean that her critique of the List "should not be
> overlooked"? What I think should not be 'overlooked' is outlined in what
> I write below.
>
> In truth, I was surprised at the reason Cathy gave for leaving the List:
> "finding some Plato and Descartes influences to be a little too entrenched
> here." I can say with some confidence that, for example, the principal
> organizers of this slow read (not do mention De TIenne himself) are about
> as influenced by Plato and Descartes as Peirce was, which is to say
> essentially rejecting Platonism (pure, as opposed to objective idealism,
> etc.) and Cartesianism (Cartesian dualism, etc.) And none of us has written
> anything whatsoever since this slow read began which could even be vaguely
> interpreted as even referring to Plato or Descartes.
>
> It is you who keeps making the claim that certain members of the List
> express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have not been
> able to support that claim because it is empty and patently false. Please
> offer some quotations from, for example, any of Gary Fuhrman's, Jon Alan
> Schmidt's, or my (or others') posts which you believe show these
> influences. You make these entirely bogus claims about forum members who
> are just going about doing what I see to be serious work in philosophy,
> this work being appreciated by a number of members of the larger Peirce
> community, being published in the doing, etc. It is as if you seemed to
> imagine that your own fields of interest countered the very legitimacy of
> the fields in which they work, denigrating their work as being " confined
> to the seminar room" as you wrote just yesterday and as you've written on
> several occasions. Do you think that we should all just stop doing
> cenoscopic philosophy because you've determined that all that's really
> important are applications of semeiotic?
>
> Perhaps it is that kind of baseless critique which "should not be
> overlooked" because, perhaps it suggests to potential new members, for
> example, a kind of narrowness of perspective, one which it seems to me to
> be reflected more in your often contemptuous critique than in the work of
> those whom you not infrequently disparagingly criticize.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:46 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> List
>>
>> I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it
>> [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>>
>> Jon AS, list,
>>
>> I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into
>> Peirce’s classification of sciences, as I think that will explain what
>> André means by saying that phaneroscopists are “pre-truthists.” But you’re
>> right, some of the ideas floated in the other thread show what happens when
>> people try to fit 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Incredible - someone joins the list and then leaves it, and gives
their reason for leaving with a critique  - and instead of examining
why she left the list, ie, examining the validity of her critique -
you turn her comments into a rather vicious attack on me. 

Instead - you should be asking HER what SHE sees as Cartesian and
Platonic, and what she sees as confined - since SHE is the one who
made those statements. Have you asked her? Why do you think she
thought this way?  Or are you just brushing her off as you do with
me?

As for the Cartesian/Platonic ideologies - well, we've been through
that with the rejection of hylomorphic objective idealism - which
posits NO primordial laws but a correlation of the two. .

How odd; you have set up a trio, yourself, JAS and Gary F, as some
kind of contained 'set' on this list. But there are others in the
field of Peircean semiotics - who DO want to see how it operates
pragmatically.  And they shouldn't be treated viciously. 

Edwina
 On Wed 16/06/21  3:33 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List,
 Edwina wrote: "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her
critique of it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked."
 What do you mean that her critique of the List "should not be
overlooked"? What  I think should not be 'overlooked' is outlined in
what I write below.
 In truth, I was surprised at the reason Cathy gave for leaving the
List: "finding some Plato and Descartes influences to be a little too
entrenched here." I can say with some confidence that, for example,
the principal organizers of this slow read (not do mention De TIenne
himself) are about as influenced by Plato and Descartes as Peirce
was, which is to say essentially rejecting Platonism (pure, as
opposed to objective idealism, etc.) and Cartesianism (Cartesian
dualism, etc.) And none of us has written anything whatsoever since
this slow read began which could even be vaguely interpreted as even
referring to Plato or Descartes. 
 It is you who keeps making the claim that certain members of the
List express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have
not been able to support that claim because it is empty and patently
false. Please offer some quotations from, for example, any of Gary
Fuhrman's, Jon Alan Schmidt's, or my (or others') posts which you
believe show these influences. You make these entirely bogus claims
about forum members who are just going about doing what I see to be
serious work in philosophy, this work being appreciated by a number
of members of the larger Peirce community, being published in the
doing, etc. It is as if you seemed to imagine that your own fields of
interest countered the very legitimacy of the fields in which they
work, denigrating their work as being " confined to the seminar room"
as you wrote just yesterday and as you've written on several
occasions. Do you think that we should all just stop doing cenoscopic
philosophy because you've determined that all that's really important
are applications of semeiotic? 
  Perhaps it is that kind of baseless critique which "should not be
overlooked" because, perhaps it suggests to potential new members,
for example, a kind of narrowness of perspective, one which it seems
to me to be reflected more in your often contemptuous critique than
in the work of those whom you not infrequently disparagingly
criticize.
  Best,
 Gary R  
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
  Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
 On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:46 PM Edwina Taborsky <
tabor...@primus.ca [1]> wrote:
List

I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it
[Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca [2] sent:
Jon AS, list,

I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into
Peirce’s classification of sciences, as I think that will explain
what André means by saying that phaneroscopists are
“pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some of the ideas floated in
the other thread show what happens when people try to fit phaneroscopy
(or the universal categories) into a preconceived framework such as a
semiotic theory. For instance, one result is a confusion of Firstness
with iconicity.  

The pragmatic relationships among phaneroscopy, mathematics, logic
and semeiotic are actually quite complex and sometimes recursive, as
I hope will become clear as we take a closer look at Peirce’s texts
on the subject. For today I’d just like to share a paragraph from
André De Tienne’s 1993 paper on “Peirce’s Definitions of the
Phaneron”: 

[[ Our awareness of a phaneron is always total and puts it into our
“Immediate and Complete 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, List,

Edwina wrote: "I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of
it [Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked."

What do *you* mean that her critique of the List "should not be
overlooked"? What *I* think should not be 'overlooked' is outlined in what
I write below.

In truth, I was surprised at the reason Cathy gave for leaving the List:
"finding some Plato and Descartes influences to be a little too entrenched
here." I can say with some confidence that, for example, the principal
organizers of this slow read (not do mention De TIenne himself) are about
as influenced by Plato and Descartes as Peirce was, which is to say
essentially rejecting Platonism (pure, as opposed to objective idealism,
etc.) and Cartesianism (Cartesian dualism, etc.) And none of us has written
anything whatsoever since this slow read began which could even be vaguely
interpreted as even referring to Plato or Descartes.

It is you who keeps making the claim that certain members of the List
express Cartesian and, especially, Platonic ideas. But you have not been
able to support that claim because it is empty and patently false. Please
offer some quotations from, for example, any of Gary Fuhrman's, Jon Alan
Schmidt's, or my (or others') posts which you believe show these
influences. You make these entirely bogus claims about forum members who
are just going about doing what I see to be serious work in philosophy,
this work being appreciated by a number of members of the larger Peirce
community, being published in the doing, etc. It is as if you seemed to
imagine that your own fields of interest countered the very legitimacy of
the fields in which they work, denigrating their work as being "confined to
the seminar room" as you wrote just yesterday and as you've written on
several occasions. Do you think that we should all just stop doing
cenoscopic philosophy because you've determined that all that's really
important are applications of semeiotic?

Perhaps it is *that* kind of baseless critique which "should not be
overlooked" because, perhaps it suggests to potential new members, for
example, a kind of narrowness of perspective, one which it seems to me to
be reflected more in your often contemptuous critique than in the work of
those whom you not infrequently disparagingly criticize.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:46 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it [Cartesian,
> Platonic] should not be overlooked.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
>
> Jon AS, list,
>
> I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into Peirce’s
> classification of sciences, as I think that will explain what André means
> by saying that phaneroscopists are “pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some
> of the ideas floated in the other thread show what happens when people try
> to fit phaneroscopy (or the universal categories) into a preconceived
> framework such as a semiotic theory. For instance, one result is a
> confusion of Firstness with iconicity.
>
> The pragmatic relationships among phaneroscopy, mathematics, logic and
> semeiotic are actually quite complex and sometimes recursive, as I hope
> will become clear as we take a closer look at Peirce’s texts on the
> subject. For today I’d just like to share a paragraph from André De
> Tienne’s 1993 paper on “Peirce’s Definitions of the Phaneron”:
>
> [[ Our awareness of a phaneron is always total and puts it into our
> “Immediate and Complete possession” (MS 645:3, 1909). The most important
> feature is the immediacy, the directness, with which one is aware of the
> phaneron. The appearance and the mind are conflated, which means that there
> is nothing to mediate between the two: there is no intervening sign. We are
> put  facie ad faciem before the very phaneron itself, Peirce says (MS 645:5).
> Direct awareness is a face-to-face encounter, which is the same as saying
> that that which appears to a mind is not represented. A seeming is not a
> representation, at least not in the first place, and thus a phaneron never
> conveys any cognitive information. Direct awareness is therefore not to be
> confounded with cognitive intuition, which is a faculty whose existence
> Peirce denies. It follows, then, that the mode of manifestation of a
> phaneron must be in some essential respect quite different from that of a
> sign.] (De Tienne 1993, 282) ]
>
> The “direct awareness” at the heart of phaneroscopy requires its
> observations to be pre-theoretical and pre-logical (and a fortiori,
> pre-truth!). But as Peirce said, it takes a ““great effort not to be
> influenced” by one’s habitual preconceptions (especially if one 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings about Semeiotic (was Readings about Phaneroscopy)

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List

1] Auke wrote that 'the dynamical object of science is reality'.
This is not the same as what JAS wrote, "The dynamical object of
every true proposition is reality,"  I think it's a logical
conclusion that science is focused on reality; whether the conclusion
of the research is true or not - is another issue. But one cannot
define reality as only 'that which is true', for such an assertion
would deny the semiosic interactions of people with their environment
and reduce these interactions to ..what...myths? Imaginary?...unless
these interactions provided evidence that the Interpretant was a
truthful interpretation of the DO?

And in response to:Auke's comment of: "If you were right, the
different sciences would be concerned with different realities.". JAS
wrote:" Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at
all, only their appearances;"

But phaneroscopy is concerned with the appearances of reality - and
this reality can't be different among the sciences.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/06/21 10:31 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Auke, Edwina, List:
 AvB: The dynamical object of science is reality.
 The dynamical object of every true proposition is reality, but as De
Tienne's slide 4 (posted yesterday) hints at the very bottom,
phaneroscopists are "pre-truthists." Again, the subject matter of
phaneroscopy is whatever  is or could be present to the mind,
including imagination and hallucination.
 AvB: If you were right, the different sciences would be concerned
with different realities.
 Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at all,
only their appearances; that is what differentiates it from
metaphysics. It is also not limited to the study of signs, but
examines any and every kind of phenomenon; that is what
differentiates it from semeiotic. 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] 
 On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Auke, list

Exactly. Splitting up areas into separate domains might give one the
feeling of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science,
namely, reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected
immediate objects entrapped in each classification.

Edwina

On Wed 16/06/21  3:54 AM , "Auke van Breemen"
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [4] sent:
Jon, 

You wrote:
It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each
science within Peirce's classification, but also the object of study.
Phaneroscopy examines whatever is or could be present to the mind.
Semeiotic studies only signs and semiosis.

--

The dynamical object of science is reality. The branches of the
sciences deliver immediate objects of that dynamical object. If you
were right, the different sciences would be concerned with different
realities. But then, how could an involved branch provide the
principles for the next branch? 

Best,

Auke  


Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

List

I think that Cathy's leaving this list, and her critique of it
[Cartesian, Platonic] should not be overlooked.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/06/21 10:32 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Jon AS, list,

I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into
Peirce’s classification of sciences, as I think that will explain
what André means by saying that phaneroscopists are
“pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some of the ideas floated in
the other thread show what happens when people try to fit phaneroscopy
(or the universal categories) into a preconceived framework such as a
semiotic theory. For instance, one result is a confusion of Firstness
with iconicity. 

The pragmatic relationships among phaneroscopy, mathematics, logic
and semeiotic are actually quite complex and sometimes recursive, as
I hope will become clear as we take a closer look at Peirce’s texts
on the subject. For today I’d just like to share a paragraph from
André De Tienne’s 1993 paper on “Peirce’s Definitions of the
Phaneron”: 

[[ Our awareness of a phaneron is always total and puts it into our
“Immediate and Complete possession” (MS 645:3, 1909). The most
important feature is the immediacy, the directness, with which one is
aware of the phaneron. The appearance and the mind are conflated,
which means that there is nothing to mediate between the two: there
is no intervening sign. We are put  facie ad faciem before the very
phaneron itself, Peirce says (MS 645:5). Direct awareness is a
face-to-face encounter, which is the same as saying that that which
appears to a mind is not represented. A seeming is not a
representation, at least not in the first place, and thus a phaneron
never conveys any cognitive information. Direct awareness is
therefore not to be confounded with cognitive intuition, which is a
faculty whose existence Peirce denies. It follows, then, that the
mode of manifestation of a phaneron must be in some essential respect
quite different from that of a sign.] (De Tienne 1993, 282) ] 

The “direct awareness” at the heart of phaneroscopy requires its
observations to be pre-theoretical and pre-logical (and a fortiori,
pre-truth!). But as Peirce said, it takes a ““great effort not to
be influenced” by one’s habitual preconceptions (especially if one
believes that all awareness is semiotic, i.e. mediated). This is
exactly the kind of opinion that one has to set aside in order to 
develop a well-grounded conception of semiosis is in the first place.
Gary f.
 From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 

 On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
 Sent: 15-Jun-21 12:17
Gary F., List:

I agree that the last line on this slide is especially important,
but several recent posts have exhibited evidence of the mistake
described in the one right above it. In fact, at times I myself have
surely been guilty of jumping too quickly from phaneroscopy into
semeiotic. The problem is that if we focus exclusively on
representation and mediation, which are paradigmatic manifestations
of 3ns, then we effectively skip right over 1ns as quality and 2ns as
reaction. Moreover, Peirce makes it very clear that phaneroscopy is an
activity in which  every inquirer must engage.

CSP: Understand me well. My appeal is to observation,--observation
that each of you must make for himself. (CP 5.52, EP 2:154, 1903)

CSP: There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as
phanerons; and since I shall have no need of referring to any but
those which (or the like of which) are perfectly familiar to
everybody, every reader can control the accuracy of what I am going
to say about them. Indeed, he must actually repeat my observations
and experiments for himself, or else I shall more utterly fail to
convey my meaning than if I were to discourse of effects of chromatic
decoration to a man congenitally blind. ... 

The reader, upon his side, must repeat the author's observations for
himself, and decide from his own observations whether the author's
account of the appearances is correct or not. (CP 1.286-287, 1904)
Thanks,

 Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] 
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:10 AM  wrote:

  Continuing our slow read, here is the next slide of André De
Tienne’s slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu)
[4] site. (You will notice André’s characteristic sense of humor
here, but the last line should be taken quite seriously.)

  Text:

“Phaneroscopy”? What a strange word! Can it possibly mean
anything? 

Is it really a science? How come I have never heard of it before? 

Can I get a Ph.D. in phaneroscopy? In what university?

Are phaneroscopists well paid? Is their job useful and interesting?
Does it help 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings about Semeiotic (was Readings about Phaneroscopy)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Auke, Edwina, List:

AvB: The dynamical object of science is reality.


The dynamical object of every true proposition is reality, but as De
Tienne's slide 4 (posted yesterday) hints at the very bottom,
phaneroscopists are "pre-truthists." Again, the subject matter of
phaneroscopy is *whatever *is or could be present to the mind, including
imagination and hallucination.

AvB: If you were right, the different sciences would be concerned with
different realities.


Phaneroscopy is not concerned with the reality of phenomena at all, only
their appearances; that is what differentiates it from metaphysics. It is
also not limited to the study of signs, but examines any and every kind of
phenomenon; that is what differentiates it from semeiotic.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:38 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Auke, list
>
> Exactly. Splitting up areas into separate domains might give one
> the feeling of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science, namely,
> reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected immediate objects
> entrapped in each classification.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Wed 16/06/21 3:54 AM , "Auke van Breemen" peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
>
> Jon,
>
> You wrote:
>
> It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each science
> within Peirce's classification, but also the object of study.
> Phaneroscopy examines whatever is or could be present to the mind.
> Semeiotic studies only signs and semiosis.
>
> --
>
> The dynamical object of science is reality. The branches of the sciences
> deliver immediate objects of that dynamical object. If you were right, the
> different sciences would be concerned with different realities. But then,
> how could an involved branch provide the principles for the next branch?
>
> Best,
>
> Auke
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[gnox]

Jon AS, list,

I’m looking forward to the part of our slow read that delves into Peirce’s 
classification of sciences, as I think that will explain what André means by 
saying that phaneroscopists are “pre-truthists.” But you’re right, some of the 
ideas floated in the other thread show what happens when people try to fit 
phaneroscopy (or the universal categories) into a preconceived framework such 
as a semiotic theory. For instance, one result is a confusion of Firstness with 
iconicity.

The pragmatic relationships among phaneroscopy, mathematics, logic and 
semeiotic are actually quite complex and sometimes recursive, as I hope will 
become clear as we take a closer look at Peirce’s texts on the subject. For 
today I’d just like to share a paragraph from André De Tienne’s 1993 paper on 
“Peirce’s Definitions of the Phaneron”:

[[ Our awareness of a phaneron is always total and puts it into our “Immediate 
and Complete possession” (MS 645:3, 1909). The most important feature is the 
immediacy, the directness, with which one is aware of the phaneron. The 
appearance and the mind are conflated, which means that there is nothing to 
mediate between the two: there is no intervening sign. We are put facie ad 
faciem before the very phaneron itself, Peirce says (MS 645:5). Direct 
awareness is a face-to-face encounter, which is the same as saying that that 
which appears to a mind is not represented. A seeming is not a representation, 
at least not in the first place, and thus a phaneron never conveys any 
cognitive information. Direct awareness is therefore not to be confounded with 
cognitive intuition, which is a faculty whose existence Peirce denies. It 
follows, then, that the mode of manifestation of a phaneron must be in some 
essential respect quite different from that of a sign.] (De Tienne 1993, 282) ]

The “direct awareness” at the heart of phaneroscopy requires its observations 
to be pre-theoretical and pre-logical (and a fortiori, pre-truth!). But as 
Peirce said, it takes a ““great effort not to be influenced” by one’s habitual 
preconceptions (especially if one believes that all awareness is semiotic, i.e. 
mediated). This is exactly the kind of opinion that one has to set aside in 
order to develop a well-grounded conception of semiosis is in the first place.

 

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 15-Jun-21 12:17



Gary F., List:

I agree that the last line on this slide is especially important, but several 
recent posts have exhibited evidence of the mistake described in the one right 
above it. In fact, at times I myself have surely been guilty of jumping too 
quickly from phaneroscopy into semeiotic. The problem is that if we focus 
exclusively on representation and mediation, which are paradigmatic 
manifestations of 3ns, then we effectively skip right over 1ns as quality and 
2ns as reaction. Moreover, Peirce makes it very clear that phaneroscopy is an 
activity in which every inquirer must engage.

CSP: Understand me well. My appeal is to observation,--observation that each of 
you must make for himself. (CP 5.52, EP 2:154, 1903)

CSP: There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as phanerons; and 
since I shall have no need of referring to any but those which (or the like of 
which) are perfectly familiar to everybody, every reader can control the 
accuracy of what I am going to say about them. Indeed, he must actually repeat 
my observations and experiments for himself, or else I shall more utterly fail 
to convey my meaning than if I were to discourse of effects of chromatic 
decoration to a man congenitally blind. ...

The reader, upon his side, must repeat the author's observations for himself, 
and decide from his own observations whether the author's account of the 
appearances is correct or not. (CP 1.286-287, 1904)

 

Thanks,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt   
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt  

 

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:10 AM mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> 
> wrote:

 Continuing our slow read, here is the next slide of André De Tienne’s 
slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu) 
  site. (You will 
notice André’s characteristic sense of humor here, but the last line should be 
taken quite seriously.)

 Text:

“Phaneroscopy”? What a strange word! Can it possibly mean anything? 

Is it really a science? How come I have never heard of it before?

Can I get a Ph.D. in phaneroscopy? In what university?

Are phaneroscopists well paid? Is their job useful and interesting? Does it 
help save lives? 

Some say that Peirce did everything that needed to be done in phaneroscopy, and 
that everything else is semiotics. Is that right? 

Is it true that phaneroscopists never 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] From phaneroscopy to semeiotic to normative logic (was readings

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

JFS: I renamed the subject line to emphasize the stages prior to the
derivation of the three branches of normative logic.


According to Peirce, the only "stages" between phaneroscopy and the
normative science of logic as semeiotic are the other two normative
sciences, esthetics and ethics.

JFS:  The first stages of phaneroscopy apply formal logic to derive the
phenomenological categories and the hypoicons.


According to Peirce, phaneroscopy has no branches. It indeed applies
formal/mathematical logic (*logica utens*) to derive the categories, but
not the hypoicons--those are derived in speculative grammar, the first
branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic (*logica docens*).

None of this is even remotely controversial among Peirce scholars. Again,
any classification of the sciences that situates "formal semeiotic" as a
branch of phaneroscopy is not *Peirce's* classification of the sciences.
After all, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is
what Peirce intended."

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:39 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Jon AS, List,
>
> I renamed the subject line to emphasize the stages prior to the derivation
> of the three branches of normative logic.
>
> JAS> I have corrected the subject line since the cited writings by Jappy
> and quoted statements by Peirce are not about phaneroscopy at all, but
> about  speculative grammar as the first branch of the normative science of
> logic as semeiotic.
>
> No.  The first stages of phaneroscopy apply formal logic to derive the
> phenomenological categories and the hypoicons.  Only after that analysis
> has been done can the categories be applied to the analysis of Beauty,
> Goodness, and Truth to derive the normative sciences.
>
> Please note that formal logic (AKA mathematical logic) is the first branch
> of mathematics.  Without formal logic, it's impossible to derive the
> categories.
>
> There are 119 instances of the term 'formal logic' in CP, and only 7
> instances of the term 'logic proper'.  And Peirce is inconsistent in his
> use of that term:  In the 1903 classification of the sciences, he defined
> 'logic proper' as the triad of speculative grmmar, Critic, and
> methodeutic.  But in every use of the term 'logic proper' prior to before
> that classification, he defines it as a synonym for Critic by itself.
>
> By Peirce's own ethics of terminology, the term 'logic proper' was a
> terrible choice.  That may be why he stopped using that term aftter those 7
> inconsistent uses.
>
> John
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Differential Logic

[Mauro Bertani]

Hi Jon,
about Lobe Connective and Node Connective and their consequences, I have a
question?
You say that genus species are evaluated by the proposition (a,(b),(c)).
the following preposition would no longer be appropriate: a (b,c).
And another question about differential calculus: when we talk about  A and
dA we talk about A and (A) or is it more similar to A and B?
thanks in advance
Mauro

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 22:56, Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Cf: Differential Logic • 2
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/23/differential-logic-2/
>
> Cactus Language for Propositional Logic
> ===
>
> https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Cactus_Language_for_Propositional_Logic
>
> The development of differential logic is facilitated by having a moderately
> efficient calculus in place at the level of boolean-valued functions and
> elementary logical propositions.  One very efficient calculus on both
> conceptual and computational grounds is based on just two types of
> logical connectives, both of variable k-ary scope.  The syntactic
> formulas of this calculus map into a family of graph-theoretic
> structures called “painted and rooted cacti” which lend visual
> representation to the functional structures of propositions
> and smooth the path to efficient computation.
>
> The first kind of connective takes the form of a parenthesized sequence
> of propositional expressions, written (e₁, e₂, …, eₖ) and meaning exactly
> one of the propositions e₁, e₂, …, eₖ is false, in short, their “minimal
> negation” is true.  An expression of this form maps into a cactus structure
> called a “lobe”, in this case, “painted” with the colors e₁, e₂, …, eₖ as
> shown below.
>
> Figure 1.  Lobe Connective
>
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/cactus-ej-lobe-connective.jpg
>
> The second kind of connective is a concatenated sequence of propositional
> expressions,
> written e₁ e₂ … eₖ and meaning all of the propositions e₁, e₂, …, eₖ are
> true, in short,
> their logical conjunction is true.  An expression of this form maps into a
> cactus structure
> called a “node”, in this case, “painted” with the colors e_1, e_2, ...,
> e_k as shown below.
>
> Figure 2.  Node Connective
>
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/cactus-ej-node-connective.jpg
>
> All other propositional connectives can be obtained through combinations
> of these two forms.  As it happens, the parenthesized form is sufficient
> to define the concatenated form, making the latter formally dispensable,
> but it's convenient to maintain it as a concise way of expressing more
> complicated combinations of parenthesized forms.  While working with
> expressions solely in propositional calculus, it's easiest to use
> plain parentheses for logical connectives.  In contexts where
> ordinary parentheses are needed for other purposes an alternate
> typeface (...) may be used for the logical operators.
>
> References
> [1] https://oeis.org/wiki/Boolean-valued_function
> [2] https://oeis.org/wiki/Minimal_negation_operator
> [3] https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
>


-- 
"[..] events are primarily linguistic or cognitive in nature. That is, the
world does not really contain events. Rather, events are the way by which
agents classify certain useful and relevant patterns of change."
Allen and Fergusson

"No, no. *History of Eternity*. At first I wanted to find every single one
of the buyers to apologize because of the book and also to thank them for
what they had done. There is an explanation for that. If you think of
thirty-seven people—those people are real, I mean every one of them has a
face of his own, a family, he lives on his own particular street. Why, if
you sell, say two thousand copies, it is the same thing as if you had sold
nothing at all because two thousand is too vast—I mean, for the imagination
to grasp. While thirty-seven people—perhaps thirty-seven are too many,
perhaps seventeen would have been better or even seven—but still
thirty-seven are still within the scope of one's imagination."
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings about Semeiotic (was Readings about Phaneroscopy)

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Auke, list

Exactly. Splitting up areas into separate domains might give one the
feeling of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science,
namely, reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected
immediate objects entrapped in each classification.

Edwina
 On Wed 16/06/21  3:54 AM , "Auke van Breemen"
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:
Jon, 
You wrote:

It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each
science within Peirce's classification, but also the object of study.
Phaneroscopy examines whatever is or could be present to the mind.
Semeiotic studies only signs and semiosis.

--

The dynamical object of science is reality. The branches of the
sciences deliver immediate objects of that dynamical object. If you
were right, the different sciences would be concerned with different
realities. But then, how could an involved branch provide the
principles for the next branch? 

Best,

AukeOp 15 juni 2021 om 20:05 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt : 
 Edwina, List:
 ET: But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the
method-of-analysis, could come up with a completely different
interpretation of 'that-which-is-studied'.
 It is not just the method  of analysis that is different for each
science within Peirce's classification, but also the object of study.
Phaneroscopy examines whatever is or could be present to the mind.
Semeiotic studies only signs and semiosis.
 ET: You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without the 'input'
into the body of this external force. ... my point is that Firstness
has to involve the inclusion/insertion of the external stimulus into
the body. 
 On the contrary, again, pure 1ns is that quality of feeling in
itself, completely independent of us "getting" it by means of "input"
into the body by means of "external stimulus." Any such physical
process is, by definition, 2ns as governed by 3ns. We never
experience 1ns directly, we always must prescind it from 2ns and 3ns,
as we will be discussing further in forthcoming slides of the slow
read. 
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:39 PM Edwina Taborsky <
tabor...@primus.ca [1]> wrote: 
JAS, list

1] JAS wrote, in reply to my first question:

"Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results of
phaneroscopic study is different from the proper interpretation of
the results of semeiotic study." 

But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the
method-of-analysis, could come up with a completely different
interpretation of 'that-which-is-studied'. I think this is
problematic. I'm not a fan of McLuhan's 'the medium is the message'.

2] You are confining the term 'sensation' to 'awareness'. I don't do
this. You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without the 'input'
into the body of this external force. Otherwise - there wouldn't be
any 'feeling' quality or not. So, if "the first is agent', the second
patient' 1.361, my point is that Firstness has to involve the
inclusion/insertion of the external stimulus into the body.  This
does not involve awareness or consciousness but it does involve
'acceptance' into the self-domain, so to speak.  

Edwina
  On Tue 15/06/21 1:21 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
  Edwina, List:
 ET: What is the functionality of putting an area of study, such as
Jappy's work, into 'semeiotic' rather than 'phaneroscopy'? How does
such a categorization affect the results of the study? 
 Why did Peirce develop a classification of the sciences that
carefully distinguishes phaneroscopy from semeiotic? Primarily
because their purposes are different, with the result that their
principles are different. In fact, the principles of semeiotic depend
upon the principles of phaneroscopy, while the latter  do not depend
upon the former. Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results
of phaneroscopic study is different from the proper interpretation of
the results of semeiotic study. 
 ET: My understanding is that pure Firstness is simply the sensation
of X
 No, sensation is a physical process and therefore a manifestation of
2ns. Pure 1ns is a  quality of feeling, as it is in itself without
reference to anything else; not any actual feeling, as it is
experienced and distinguished from other feelings. 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] 
 On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:34 AM Edwina Taborsky <
tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: 
List

I have several comments

1] First, a question to Gary R and John Sowa: What is the
functionality of putting an area of study,  such as Jappy's work,
into 'semeiotic' rather than 'phaneroscopy'? How  does such a
categorization affect the results of the study? 

2] With reference to Bakhtin, I wouldn't define him as a semiotician
but put him 

[PEIRCE-L] Thank you

[Synechism Center]

List,

I appreciate getting to know a few of you better. Thank you so much, but
I'm finding some Plato and Descartes influences to be a little too
entrenched here. I know and understand that they are extremely difficult to
be free of in academia. Especially in Western culture. I will always be
looking for and reading through any new papers and books put out by each of
you and The Peirce Society in general, but I'm going to unsubscribe from
this list for now. My focus is on the general public, so I need to spend my
time dialoguing with others who can help me encourage and enhance that.
Please reach out to me if you would be interested in helping me with any of
my projects.

Kindest regards, and the very best wishes to each of you,

Cathy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings about Semeiotic (was Readings about Phaneroscopy)

[Auke van Breemen]

Jon,


You wrote:

It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each science within 
Peirce's classification, but also the object of study. Phaneroscopy examines 
whatever is or could be present to the mind. Semeiotic studies only signs and 
semiosis.

--

The dynamical object of science is reality. The branches of the sciences 
deliver immediate objects of that dynamical object. If you were right, the 
different sciences would be concerned with different realities. But then, how 
could an involved branch provide the principles for the next branch?

Best,

Auke

> Op 15 juni 2021 om 20:05 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt :
> 
> Edwina, List:
> 
> 
> > > ET: But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the 
> method-of-analysis, could come up with a completely different interpretation 
> of 'that-which-is-studied'.
> > 
> > > 
> It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each science 
> within Peirce's classification, but also the object of study. Phaneroscopy 
> examines whatever is or could be present to the mind. Semeiotic studies only 
> signs and semiosis.
> 
> 
> > > ET: You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without 
> the 'input' into the body of this external force. ... my point is that 
> Firstness has to involve the inclusion/insertion of the external stimulus 
> into the body.
> > 
> > > 
> On the contrary, again, pure 1ns is that quality of feeling in itself, 
> completely independent of us "getting" it by means of "input" into the body 
> by means of "external stimulus." Any such physical process is, by definition, 
> 2ns as governed by 3ns. We never experience 1ns directly, we always must 
> prescind it from 2ns and 3ns, as we will be discussing further in forthcoming 
> slides of the slow read.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon S.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:39 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca 
> mailto:tabor...@primus.ca > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > JAS, list
> > 
> > 1] JAS wrote, in reply to my first question:
> > 
> > "Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results of 
> > phaneroscopic study is different from the proper interpretation of the 
> > results of semeiotic study."
> > 
> > But this suggests that a researcher, dependent on the 
> > method-of-analysis, could come up with a completely different 
> > interpretation of 'that-which-is-studied'. I think this is problematic. I'm 
> > not a fan of McLuhan's 'the medium is the message'.
> > 
> > 2] You are confining the term 'sensation' to 'awareness'. I don't 
> > do this. You don't get even that 'quality-of-feeling' without the 'input' 
> > into the body of this external force. Otherwise - there wouldn't be any 
> > 'feeling' quality or not. So, if "the first is agent', the second patient' 
> > 1.361, my point is that Firstness has to involve the inclusion/insertion of 
> > the external stimulus into the body.  This does not involve awareness or 
> > consciousness but it does involve 'acceptance' into the self-domain, so to 
> > speak. 
> > 
> > Edwina
> > 
> > On Tue 15/06/21 1:21 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com 
> > mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
> > 
> > > > > Edwina, List:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > ET: What is the functionality of 
> > > putting an area of study, such as Jappy's work, into 'semeiotic' rather 
> > > than 'phaneroscopy'? How does such a categorization affect the results of 
> > > the study?
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > Why did Peirce develop a classification of the sciences that 
> > > carefully distinguishes phaneroscopy from semeiotic? Primarily because 
> > > their purposes are different, with the result that their principles are 
> > > different. In fact, the principles of semeiotic depend upon the 
> > > principles of phaneroscopy, while the latter do not depend upon the 
> > > former. Therefore, the proper interpretation of the results of 
> > > phaneroscopic study is different from the proper interpretation of the 
> > > results of semeiotic study.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > ET: My understanding is that pure 
> > > Firstness is simply the sensation of X
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > No, sensation is a physical process and therefore a 
> > > manifestation of 2ns. Pure 1ns is a quality of feeling, as it is in 
> > > itself without reference to anything else; not any actual feeling, as it 
> > > is experienced and distinguished from other feelings.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> > > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
> > > http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
> > > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> > > 
> > > On