Re: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Gary Richmond]

Gary F, List,

The email you just posted came through fine.

I recall JAS also having to reverse the white-text thing in one of your
posts. What I did to correct it was to copy your white (invisible text) to
a fresh email draft and then use the text/background function on gmail to
have the text register black. I don't know if that would work for you as a
test.

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 Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 1:49 PM  wrote:

> Thanks for fixing that up, Gary. I’m still baffled by this white-text
> thing, because it never comes back to me from the list that way, and in
> this case the quotes were not copied from TS but from another file that is
> *not* formatted white-on-black. Strange. I hope this post doesn’t come
> out reversed!
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond 
> *Sent:* 19-Jun-21 12:40
> *To:* Peirce-L 
> *Cc:* Gary Fuhrman 
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
>
>
>
> Gary f, List,
>
>
>
> I like your answers better too, Gary, much better; but your quoted text
> arrived on the List as blank spaces, likely because of your reverse type
> color (white on black) in your book, *Turning Sings*.  Here's the text as
> I darkened it.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Not-G-man
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: 
> Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> To: 
>
>
>
> Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your
> answers. Here’s mine:
>
> In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks
> of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science,
> depends on *multiple* observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of
> phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct
> observations of the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of
> “phanerons” when we consider what they are doing. We might say that each of
> these phanerons is a token of the generic *phaneron*, and each observer a
> token of the *mind* that the phaneron is present to. Here is the
> quotation again:
>
> [[ 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. What I term
> *phaneroscopy* is that study which, supported by the direct observation
> of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very
> broad classes of phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that
> although they are so inextricably mixed together that no one can be
> isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite disparate;
> then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list comprises all
> of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds
> to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal
> subdivisions of those categories. ]]
>
>
>
> The reason that Peirce usually insists on the *oneness* of the phaneron
> (or phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472,
> 1913:
>
> [[ … what I am *aware* of, or, to use a different expression for the same
> fact, what I am *conscious* of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk,
> the ‘contents of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and
> the fact that I am conscious were two different facts, and as if the one
> were inside the other), this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is
> evidently the entire universe, so far as I am concerned.]]
>
>
> If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in Turning Signs
> 5: Inside Out (gnusystems.ca) .
>  “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 Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM  wrote:
>
> Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your
> answers. Here’s mine:
>
> In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks
> of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science,
> depends on *multiple* observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of
> phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct
> observations of the phaneron. Thus we must 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[gnox]

Thanks for fixing that up, Gary. I’m still baffled by this white-text thing, 
because it never comes back to me from the list that way, and in this case the 
quotes were not copied from TS but from another file that is not formatted 
white-on-black. Strange. I hope this post doesn’t come out reversed!

 

Gary f.

From: Gary Richmond  
Sent: 19-Jun-21 12:40
To: Peirce-L 
Cc: Gary Fuhrman 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary f, List,

 

I like your answers better too, Gary, much better; but your quoted text arrived 
on the List as blank spaces, likely because of your reverse type color (white 
on black) in your book, Turning Sings.  Here's the text as I darkened it. 

 

Cheers,

 

Not-G-man

 

-- Forwarded message -
From: mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> >
Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
To: mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >

 

Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your answers. 
Here’s mine:

In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks of 
phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science, depends 
on multiple observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of 
phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct observations of 
the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of “phanerons” when we consider 
what they are doing. We might say that each of these phanerons is a token of 
the generic phaneron, and each observer a token of the mind that the phaneron 
is present to. Here is the quotation again:

[[ 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. What I term phaneroscopy is that study 
which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its 
observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the 
features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed together 
that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite 
disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list 
comprises all of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally 
proceeds to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal 
subdivisions of those categories. ]]

 

The reason that Peirce usually insists on the oneness of the phaneron (or 
phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472, 1913:

[[ … what I am aware of, or, to use a different expression for the same fact, 
what I am conscious of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk, the ‘contents 
of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and the fact that I am 
conscious were two different facts, and as if the one were inside the other), 
this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is evidently the entire universe, 
so far as I am concerned.]]

 


If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in  
 Turning Signs 5: Inside Out (gnusystems.ca).


 


“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 Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> 
> wrote:

Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your answers. 
Here’s mine:

In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks of 
phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science, depends 
on multiple observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of 
phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct observations of 
the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of “phanerons” when we consider 
what they are doing. We might say that each of these phanerons is a token of 
the generic phaneron, and each observer a token of the mind that the phaneron 
is present to. Here is the quotation again:

[[ 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] AndrÃ(c) De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Gary Richmond]

Gary f, List,

I like your answers better too, Gary, much better; but your quoted text
arrived on the List as blank spaces, likely because of your reverse type
color (white on black) in your book, *Turning Sings*.  Here's the text as I
darkened it.

Cheers,

Not-G-man

-- Forwarded message -
From: 
Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
To: 


Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your
answers. Here’s mine:

In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks
of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science,
depends on *multiple* observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of
phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct
observations of the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of
“phanerons” when we consider what they are doing. We might say that each of
these phanerons is a token of the generic *phaneron*, and each observer a
token of the *mind* that the phaneron is present to. Here is the quotation
again:

[[ 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. What I term *phaneroscopy* is
that study which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and
generalizing its observations, signalizes several very broad classes of
phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that although they are so
inextricably mixed together that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest
that their characters are quite disparate; then proves, beyond question,
that a certain very short list comprises all of these broadest categories
of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds to the laborious and difficult
task of enumerating the principal subdivisions of those categories. ]]



The reason that Peirce usually insists on the *oneness* of the phaneron (or
phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472,
1913:

[[ … what I am *aware* of, or, to use a different expression for the same
fact, what I am *conscious* of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk,
the ‘contents of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and
the fact that I am conscious were two different facts, and as if the one
were inside the other), this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is
evidently the entire universe, so far as I am concerned.]]


If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in Turning Signs 5:
Inside Out (gnusystems.ca) .

“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 Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM  wrote:

> Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your
> answers. Here’s mine:
>
> In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks
> of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science,
> depends on *multiple* observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of
> phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct
> observations of the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of
> “phanerons” when we consider what they are doing. We might say that each of
> these phanerons is a token of the generic *phaneron*, and each observer a
> token of the *mind* that the phaneron is present to. Here is the
> quotation again:
>
> [[ 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. What I term
> *phaneroscopy* is that study which, supported by the direct observation
> of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very
> broad classes of phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that
> although they are so inextricably mixed together that no one can be
> isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite disparate;
> then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list comprises all
> of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds
> to the laborious and 

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

[Auke van Breemen]

Gary F.

I advise you to look at the starting point of this exchange. I don't object to 
transferring my message to another heading but I don't therewith give you the 
right to use that transfer to discard my response as not to the point. If you 
hadn't made the transfer you wouldn't have a point with this message. Just to 
recall, it was about semiotics and phaneroscopy an interesting point raised by 
Cathy dealing with the Mona Lisa.

By the way Peirce commented himself on cartesian doubt. It is that take on the 
matter I use, not the conventional one. Whatever that may be.

Auke

 

> Op 19 juni 2021 om 15:47 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca:
> 
> 
> Auke, I’m not suggesting anything different from what Peirce said about 
> phaneroscopy. The trouble is that in order to grasp what it is, you have to 
> take Peirce at his word rather than translating his ideas into habitual 
> categories such as “Cartesian thought experiment,” “absolute doubt” and “the 
> unreal.”
> 
> I know that you have access to a large sampling of Peirce’s texts and can 
> search through it for “phenomenology” and “phanero.” If you’re not willing to 
> wait for some of those texts to turn up in this slow read, I recommend that 
> you find and read them yourself while setting aside your preconceptions. 
> (which is in itself a crucial and challenging aspect of phaneroscopic 
> practice.) Then you’ll be in a position to judge whether anything I’ve said 
> is in conflict with anything Peirce said on the subject.
> 
>  
> 
> Gary f.
> 
>  
> 
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 09:18
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> 
>  
> 
> Gary F.
> 
> Are you suggesting that doing phaneroscopy is like doing a cartesian 
> thought experiment? Eliminating everything, and building things up from 
> absolute doubt, or, in your case, the unreal?
> 
> Auke
> 
> > > 
> > Op 19 juni 2021 om 14:33 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca 
> > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca :
> > 
> > AVB: I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?
> > 
> > GF: I guess that’s right! I naively trusted that your question 
> > related to the nature of phaneroscopy as Peirce defines it, and not to some 
> > metaphysical issue which does not exist for phaneroscopy.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Gary f.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Auke van Breemen  > mailto:a.bree...@upcmail.nl >
> > Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
> > To: g...@gnusystems.ca mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca ; 
> > peirce-l@list.iupui.edu mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Auke
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca 
> > > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca :
> > > 
> > > Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you 
> > > would mean by stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy 
> > > professes to deliver its immediate object” — if you stated that in an 
> > > earlier post, I must have missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to 
> > > the proposition that “the dynamical object of the science is reality,” so 
> > > I can’t guess whether it would be true or not. Peirce says that 
> > > phaneroscopy is a “science,” not that the semiotic distinction between 
> > > dynamic and immediate objects applies to it as if it were a sign, at 
> > > least not in any text that I can recall.
> > > 
> > > I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the 
> > > universal categories “do not have a role in reality and are of themselves 
> > > devoid of any reality.” Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles 
> > > from phaneroscopy, not the other way round. The object of attention in 
> > > phaneroscopy is obviously the phaneron. I could say more about Peirce’s 
> > > use of the word “object” in connection with phaneroscopy, and give some 
> > > examples, but that probably wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll 
> > > have to leave it at that.
> > > 
> > > Gary f.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
> > > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  > > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> > > Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
> > > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Gary F., list,
> > > 
> > > Nice summary of pheneroscopy.  But that was not the issue. 
> > > The issue was whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an 
> > > 

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

[gnox]

Auke, I’m not suggesting anything different from what Peirce said about 
phaneroscopy. The trouble is that in order to grasp what it is, you have to 
take Peirce at his word rather than translating his ideas into habitual 
categories such as “Cartesian thought experiment,” “absolute doubt” and “the 
unreal.”

I know that you have access to a large sampling of Peirce’s texts and can 
search through it for “phenomenology” and “phanero.” If you’re not willing to 
wait for some of those texts to turn up in this slow read, I recommend that you 
find and read them yourself while setting aside your preconceptions. (which is 
in itself a crucial and challenging aspect of phaneroscopic practice.) Then 
you’ll be in a position to judge whether anything I’ve said is in conflict with 
anything Peirce said on the subject.

 

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 19-Jun-21 09:18
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary F.

Are you suggesting that doing phaneroscopy is like doing a cartesian thought 
experiment? Eliminating everything, and building things up from absolute doubt, 
or, in your case, the unreal?

Auke

Op 19 juni 2021 om 14:33 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca  
: 

AVB: I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?

GF: I guess that’s right! I naively trusted that your question related to the 
nature of phaneroscopy as Peirce defines it, and not to some metaphysical issue 
which does not exist for phaneroscopy. 

  

Gary f. 

  

  

From: Auke van Breemen mailto:a.bree...@upcmail.nl> > 
Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
To: g...@gnusystems.ca  ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 
 
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?

 

Auke

Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca  
:

Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you would mean by 
stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy professes to deliver 
its immediate object” — if you stated that in an earlier post, I must have 
missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to the proposition that “the 
dynamical object of the science is reality,” so I can’t guess whether it would 
be true or not. Peirce says that phaneroscopy is a “science,” not that the 
semiotic distinction between dynamic and immediate objects applies to it as if 
it were a sign, at least not in any text that I can recall. 

I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the universal categories 
“do not have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of any reality.” 
Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles from phaneroscopy, not the other 
way round. The object of attention in phaneroscopy is obviously the phaneron. I 
could say more about Peirce’s use of the word “object” in connection with 
phaneroscopy, and give some examples, but that probably wouldn’t answer your 
question either, so I’ll have to leave it at that. 

Gary f. 

  

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu   
mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> > On 
Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu  
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary F., list,

Nice summary of pheneroscopy.  But that was not the issue. The issue was 
whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object of which 
phaneroscopy professes to deliver its immediate object), as I stated, or not. 

best,

Auke

Op 18 juni 2021 om 16:13 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca  
:

Auke, Gary R, list, 

For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or propositions that are 
publicly verifiable. If I tell you about a dream I had last night, I do so 
honestly if what I tell you is what I actually remember; but lacking any 
independent observer of the dream (or of my memory), I can’t claim veracity for 
what I tell you. I have no doubt that the dream actually occurred and thus was 
real in that sense, but I have no way to ascertain how the content of the dream 
relates to any reality external to it; and that is the reality which might be 
definable as the totality of facts expressible in true propositions. The 
phaneron includes much more than that, including dreams, possibilities and so 
on.

The focus of phaneroscopy on what appears precludes any judgments about 
(metaphysical) reality or (logical) truth. Indeed, the ability to discern the 
essential categories or “modes of being” of whatever can appear is what 
generates the concept of reality in the first place. Specifically, Peirce says 
that “In the idea of reality, Secondness is predominant; for the real is that 
which insists upon forcing its way to recognition as something other than the 
mind's creation” (CP 1.325, R 717). 

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

[Auke van Breemen]

Gary F.

Are you suggesting that doing phaneroscopy is like doing a cartesian thought 
experiment? Eliminating everything, and building things up from absolute doubt, 
or, in your case, the unreal?

Auke

> Op 19 juni 2021 om 14:33 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca:
> 
> 
> AVB: I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?
> 
> GF: I guess that’s right! I naively trusted that your question related to 
> the nature of phaneroscopy as Peirce defines it, and not to some metaphysical 
> issue which does not exist for phaneroscopy.
> 
>  
> 
> Gary f.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Auke van Breemen 
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
> To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> 
>  
> 
> I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?
> 
>  
> 
> Auke
> 
> > > 
> > Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca 
> > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca :
> > 
> > Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you would 
> > mean by stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy professes 
> > to deliver its immediate object” — if you stated that in an earlier post, I 
> > must have missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to the proposition 
> > that “the dynamical object of the science is reality,” so I can’t guess 
> > whether it would be true or not. Peirce says that phaneroscopy is a 
> > “science,” not that the semiotic distinction between dynamic and immediate 
> > objects applies to it as if it were a sign, at least not in any text that I 
> > can recall.
> > 
> > I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the universal 
> > categories “do not have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of 
> > any reality.” Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles from 
> > phaneroscopy, not the other way round. The object of attention in 
> > phaneroscopy is obviously the phaneron. I could say more about Peirce’s use 
> > of the word “object” in connection with phaneroscopy, and give some 
> > examples, but that probably wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll 
> > have to leave it at that.
> > 
> > Gary f.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
> > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> > Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
> > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Gary F., list,
> > 
> > Nice summary of pheneroscopy.  But that was not the issue. The 
> > issue was whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object 
> > of which phaneroscopy professes to deliver its immediate object), as I 
> > stated, or not. 
> > 
> > best,
> > 
> > Auke
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > Op 18 juni 2021 om 16:13 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca 
> > > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca :
> > > 
> > > Auke, Gary R, list,
> > > 
> > > For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or 
> > > propositions that are publicly verifiable. If I tell you about a dream I 
> > > had last night, I do so honestly if what I tell you is what I actually 
> > > remember; but lacking any independent observer of the dream (or of my 
> > > memory), I can’t claim veracity for what I tell you. I have no doubt that 
> > > the dream actually occurred and thus was real in that sense, but I have 
> > > no way to ascertain how the content of the dream relates to any reality 
> > > external to it; and that is the reality which might be definable as the 
> > > totality of facts expressible in true propositions. The phaneron includes 
> > > much more than that, including dreams, possibilities and so on.
> > > 
> > > The focus of phaneroscopy on what appears precludes any 
> > > judgments about (metaphysical) reality or (logical) truth. Indeed, the 
> > > ability to discern the essential categories or “modes of being” of 
> > > whatever can appear is what generates the concept of reality in the first 
> > > place. Specifically, Peirce says that “In the idea of reality, Secondness 
> > > is predominant; for the real is that which insists upon forcing its way 
> > > to recognition as something other than the mind's creation” (CP 1.325, R 
> > > 717). Logic and metaphysics have to develop their senses of truth and 
> > > reality from some method of observing and generalizing that does not 
> > > presuppose them, and that is what Peirce called phenomenology or 
> > > phaneroscopy.
> > > 
> > > By the way, I’m using those terms almost interchangeably, 
> > > because I think Peirce’s decision to call it “phaneroscopy” in 1904 was 
> > > strictly a terminological change (he decided there were too many other 
> > > established uses of the term 

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

[gnox]

Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your answers. 
Here’s mine:

In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks of 
phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science, depends 
on multiple observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of 
phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct observations of 
the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of “phanerons” when we consider 
what they are doing. We might say that each of these phanerons is a token of 
the generic phaneron, and each observer a token of the mind that the phaneron 
is present to. Here is the quotation again:

[[ 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. What I term phaneroscopy is that study 
which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its 
observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the 
features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed together 
that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite 
disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list 
comprises all of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally 
proceeds to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal 
subdivisions of those categories. ]]

 

The reason that Peirce usually insists on the oneness of the phaneron (or 
phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472, 1913:

[[ … what I am aware of, or, to use a different expression for the same fact, 
what I am conscious of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk, the ‘contents 
of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and the fact that I am 
conscious were two different facts, and as if the one were inside the other), 
this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is evidently the entire universe, 
so far as I am concerned.]]

 

If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in Turning Signs 5: 
Inside Out (gnusystems.ca)  .

 

Gary f

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Helmut Raulien
Sent: 19-Jun-21 07:32
To: a.bree...@upcmail.nl
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

List

 

Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from the 
Commens Dictionary:

"

1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284

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. If you ask 
present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions 
unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the 
phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all 
minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is occupied 
with the formal elements of the phaneron.

"

Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of 
multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible 
explanations:

1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a merely 
weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other 
possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons.

2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due to 
the continuity-claim, blurredly separable.

I like number 1 better.

Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it corresponds to 
any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that it does 
correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be semiotic. 
Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better 
focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. But I 
dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, phaneroscopy may 
be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" helps to not miss 
something.

Did I get everything ok?

Best

Helmut

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 

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

[gnox]

AVB: I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?

GF: I guess that’s right! I naively trusted that your question related to the 
nature of phaneroscopy as Peirce defines it, and not to some metaphysical issue 
which does not exist for phaneroscopy.

 

Gary f. 

 

 

From: Auke van Breemen  
Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?

 

Auke

Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca  
: 

Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you would mean by 
stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy professes to deliver 
its immediate object” — if you stated that in an earlier post, I must have 
missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to the proposition that “the 
dynamical object of the science is reality,” so I can’t guess whether it would 
be true or not. Peirce says that phaneroscopy is a “science,” not that the 
semiotic distinction between dynamic and immediate objects applies to it as if 
it were a sign, at least not in any text that I can recall. 

I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the universal categories 
“do not have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of any reality.” 
Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles from phaneroscopy, not the other 
way round. The object of attention in phaneroscopy is obviously the phaneron. I 
could say more about Peirce’s use of the word “object” in connection with 
phaneroscopy, and give some examples, but that probably wouldn’t answer your 
question either, so I’ll have to leave it at that. 

Gary f. 

  

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu   
mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> > On 
Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu  
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary F., list,

Nice summary of pheneroscopy.  But that was not the issue. The issue was 
whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object of which 
phaneroscopy professes to deliver its immediate object), as I stated, or not. 

best,

Auke

Op 18 juni 2021 om 16:13 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca  
:

Auke, Gary R, list, 

For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or propositions that are 
publicly verifiable. If I tell you about a dream I had last night, I do so 
honestly if what I tell you is what I actually remember; but lacking any 
independent observer of the dream (or of my memory), I can’t claim veracity for 
what I tell you. I have no doubt that the dream actually occurred and thus was 
real in that sense, but I have no way to ascertain how the content of the dream 
relates to any reality external to it; and that is the reality which might be 
definable as the totality of facts expressible in true propositions. The 
phaneron includes much more than that, including dreams, possibilities and so 
on.

The focus of phaneroscopy on what appears precludes any judgments about 
(metaphysical) reality or (logical) truth. Indeed, the ability to discern the 
essential categories or “modes of being” of whatever can appear is what 
generates the concept of reality in the first place. Specifically, Peirce says 
that “In the idea of reality, Secondness is predominant; for the real is that 
which insists upon forcing its way to recognition as something other than the 
mind's creation” (CP 1.325, R 717). Logic and metaphysics have to develop their 
senses of truth and reality from some method of observing and generalizing that 
does not presuppose them, and that is what Peirce called phenomenology or 
phaneroscopy. 

By the way, I’m using those terms almost interchangeably, because I think 
Peirce’s decision to call it “phaneroscopy” in 1904 was strictly a 
terminological change (he decided there were too many other established uses of 
the term “phenomenology” already). Gary R’s post yesterday suggested that as 
phaneroscopy develops beyond Peirce’s version (as he expected it would), it may 
develop other “branches” or parts to serve as bridges to other sciences such as 
semeiotics. Then the researchers involved will have to make more terminological 
decisions about what to call these branches or whether to call them “branches” 
of phenomenology or phaneroscopy. In this slow read though, all we’re trying to 
do (so far) is to try to develop a clear and distinct idea of what the science 
is that Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy. 

I hope this helps … 

  

Gary f. 

  

  

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu   
mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> > On 
Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
Sent: 18-Jun-21 08:36
To: 
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary, List

I wrote:

Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic 

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

[gnox]

John, everything you say here was taken for granted in my post (and is one
of the central ideas in my book): that most communication has to rely on
trusting one’s dialogue partner to be speaking from experience. Auke’s
question was about the word veracity in comparison with honesty and other
terms for specific aspects of truthfulness. So that was the question I
answered.

 

Your last sentence, though, shows that you’re confusing phaneroscopy with
psychology. Phaneroscopy is a cenoscopic science and does not need any
special equipment to make its observations. Peirce contrasts it with
psychology in a 1909 letter to William James:

[[ I mean to begin by drawing a distinction between what I call “Psychology
Proper,” meaning an account of how the mind functions, developes, and
decays, together with the explanation of all this by motions and changes of
the brain, or, in default of this kind of explanation, by generalizations of
psychical phenomena, so as to account for all the workings of the soul in
the sense of reducing them to combinations of a few typical workings,— in
short a sort of physiology of the mind, on the one hand,— and what I call
“Phaneroscopy” on the other, or a description of what is before the mind or
in consciousness, as it appears, in the different kinds of consciousness,
which I rank under … three headings …. First, “Qualisense,” which means that
element of Feeling which consists in consciousness of the Quality of the
Feeling, but omitting the element of Vividness, which does not alter the
Quality (thus a faint memory of a highly luminous, and chromatic vermillion
does not appear less luminous or less high colored, for all its dimness) and
omitting all other concomitants of present feeling that are absent from a
correct recollection of the same Quality. (CP 8.300) ]]

 

I include the last part of that to throw some specifically phaneroscopic
light on qualia. This term, introduced by Peirce, has been widely used in
cognitive science, but usually without a Peircean understanding of it; hence
what David Chalmers called “the hard problem of consciousness.” Marc
Champagne has shown in his recent book Consciousness and the Philosophy of
Signs how such philosophical problems could be untangled by paying more
attention to Peirce’s semiotic analysis — especially the concept of the
qualisign — and its basis in phaneroscopy.

 

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On
Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: 18-Jun-21 23:36
To: g...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

 

Gary F> For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or propositions
that are publicly verifiable.  

But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people
whose observations cannot be  verified by any other sources.  When your
friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have photographic
evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw.

Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than
others.  We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may
hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing.

For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only
sources for the details.  But neuroscientists have found those reports to be
extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans.

Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the science
of phaneroscopy.

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] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4

[Auke van Breemen]

Helmut,

I take this 1905 quote to mean that although the contents of the pheneron do 
not always entertain a representative relation with an object (real thing, 
sic), we must accept the reality of the pheneron. In other words the reality of 
the phaneron does not depend on its representative relation. 

With regard to your:

Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better 
focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science.

--

Indeed, each of the theoretical sciences concentrate on an aspect of semeiosis. 
Pheneroscopy on aspects that (with conciderable effort because of our habits of 
interpretation) can be adressed without invoking the questions of 
representation, truth, etc. And so, again, being concerned with questions obout 
objects like the phaneron that function pre-truth, does not mean they are 
unreal. That position comes down to mixing upo the object of the phaneron with 
the object of phaneroscopy.

best,

Auke

> Op 19 juni 2021 om 13:32 schreef Helmut Raulien :
> 
> List
>  
> Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from 
> the Commens Dictionary:
> "
> 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284
> 
> 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. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these 
> questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of 
> the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all 
> minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is 
> occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron.
> 
> "
> 
> Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of 
> multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible 
> explanations:
> 
> 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a 
> merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other 
> possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons.
> 
> 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due 
> to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable.
> 
> I like number 1 better.
> 
> Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it 
> corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that 
> it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be 
> semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific 
> method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct 
> science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, 
> phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" 
> helps to not miss something.
> 
> Did I get everything ok?
> 
> Best
> 
> Helmut
> 
>  
> 
> 
>19. Juni 2021 um 11:33 Uhr
>"Auke van Breemen" 
>   wrote:
> 
>
> 
>   John,
> 
>   Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : 
> Three laws of Qualia.
> 
>   
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness
>  
> 
>   Auke
> 
>   > > Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" 
> :
> >
> > 
> >   Gary F> For me at least, �veracity� only applies to stories or 
> > propositions that are publicly verifiable. 
> > 
> >   But a huge amount of information that we get every day is 
> > reported by people whose observations cannot be  verified by any other 
> > sources.  When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they 
> > rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what 
> > they did or saw.
> > 
> >   Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or 
> > truthful than others.  We also learn that people whose reports are usually 
> > truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or 
> > embarrassing.
> > 
> >   For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are 
> > the only sources for the details.  But neuroscientists have found those 
> > reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive 
> > from brain scans.
> > 
> >   Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing 
> > the science of phaneroscopy.
> > 
> >   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 

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

[Helmut Raulien]

List

 

Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from the Commens Dictionary:

"


1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284


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. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron.

"

Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible explanations:

1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons.

2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable.

I like number 1 better.

Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" helps to not miss something.

Did I get everything ok?

Best

Helmut




 

 19. Juni 2021 um 11:33 Uhr
 "Auke van Breemen" 
wrote:

 


John,

Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : Three laws of Qualia.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness 

Auke

Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
 
Gary F> For me at least, �veracity� only applies to stories or propositions that are publicly verifiable. 

But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people whose observations cannot be  verified by any other sources.  When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw.

Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than others.  We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing.

For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only sources for the details.  But neuroscientists have found those reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans.

Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the science of phaneroscopy.

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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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

[Auke van Breemen]

John,

Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : Three laws 
of Qualia.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness
 

Auke

> Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
> 
> 
> Gary F> For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or 
> propositions that are publicly verifiable. 
> 
> But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by 
> people whose observations cannot be  verified by any other sources.  When 
> your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have 
> photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw.
> 
> Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than 
> others.  We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may 
> hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing.
> 
> For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only 
> sources for the details.  But neuroscientists have found those reports to be 
> extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans.
> 
> Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the 
> science of phaneroscopy.
> 
> 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.
> 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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

[Auke van Breemen]

I think I never had you. So how could I lose you?


Auke

> Op 18 juni 2021 om 22:30 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca:
> 
> 
> Auke, I’m afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you would mean by 
> stating that reality is “an object of which phaneroscopy professes to deliver 
> its immediate object” — if you stated that in an earlier post, I must have 
> missed it. I also can’t attach any meaning to the proposition that “the 
> dynamical object of the science is reality,” so I can’t guess whether it 
> would be true or not. Peirce says that phaneroscopy is a “science,” not that 
> the semiotic distinction between dynamic and immediate objects applies to it 
> as if it were a sign, at least not in any text that I can recall.
> 
> I also don’t know what you could mean by saying that the universal 
> categories “do not have a role in reality and are of themselves devoid of any 
> reality.” Semiotic and metaphysics take their principles from phaneroscopy, 
> not the other way round. The object of attention in phaneroscopy is obviously 
> the phaneron. I could say more about Peirce’s use of the word “object” in 
> connection with phaneroscopy, and give some examples, but that probably 
> wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll have to leave it at that.
> 
> Gary f.
> 
>  
> 
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:38
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> 
>  
> 
> Gary F., list,
> 
> Nice summary of pheneroscopy.  But that was not the issue. The issue was 
> whether the dynamical object of the science is reality (an object of which 
> phaneroscopy professes to deliver its immediate object), as I stated, or not. 
> 
> best,
> 
> Auke
> 
> > > 
> > Op 18 juni 2021 om 16:13 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca 
> > mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca :
> > 
> > Auke, Gary R, list,
> > 
> > For me at least, “veracity” only applies to stories or propositions 
> > that are publicly verifiable. If I tell you about a dream I had last night, 
> > I do so honestly if what I tell you is what I actually remember; but 
> > lacking any independent observer of the dream (or of my memory), I can’t 
> > claim veracity for what I tell you. I have no doubt that the dream actually 
> > occurred and thus was real in that sense, but I have no way to ascertain 
> > how the content of the dream relates to any reality external to it; and 
> > that is the reality which might be definable as the totality of facts 
> > expressible in true propositions. The phaneron includes much more than 
> > that, including dreams, possibilities and so on.
> > 
> > The focus of phaneroscopy on what appears precludes any judgments 
> > about (metaphysical) reality or (logical) truth. Indeed, the ability to 
> > discern the essential categories or “modes of being” of whatever can appear 
> > is what generates the concept of reality in the first place. Specifically, 
> > Peirce says that “In the idea of reality, Secondness is predominant; for 
> > the real is that which insists upon forcing its way to recognition as 
> > something other than the mind's creation” (CP 1.325, R 717). Logic and 
> > metaphysics have to develop their senses of truth and reality from some 
> > method of observing and generalizing that does not presuppose them, and 
> > that is what Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy.
> > 
> > By the way, I’m using those terms almost interchangeably, because I 
> > think Peirce’s decision to call it “phaneroscopy” in 1904 was strictly a 
> > terminological change (he decided there were too many other established 
> > uses of the term “phenomenology” already). Gary R’s post yesterday 
> > suggested that as phaneroscopy develops beyond Peirce’s version (as he 
> > expected it would), it may develop other “branches” or parts to serve as 
> > bridges to other sciences such as semeiotics. Then the researchers involved 
> > will have to make more terminological decisions about what to call these 
> > branches or whether to call them “branches” of phenomenology or 
> > phaneroscopy. In this slow read though, all we’re trying to do (so far) is 
> > to try to develop a clear and distinct idea of what the science is that 
> > Peirce called phenomenology or phaneroscopy.
> > 
> > I hope this helps …
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Gary f.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 
> > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  > mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> > Sent: 18-Jun-21 08:36
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Gary, List
> > 
> > I wrote:
> > 
> > Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > You