Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> On Aug 24, 2021, at 11:39 AM, 
> 
> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not semeiotic.

This sentence is a remarkable example of how emotional rhetorical thrusts 
generate the thoughts  that make no sense in the language of CSP.

Units of thoughts have units of meaning.   These two concepts are inseparable.

In the engineering sciences, especially the epistemology and ontology of 
pragmatic necessities, the connections between phaneroscopy and semiotics are 
essential to ethical actions.

The graphic diagrams that illustrate the iconic forms of engineering work 
connect, necessarily, the semeiotic with the phaneroscopy. Indeed, the 
connections of symbols with the indices of the diagrams derived from semiotic 
and phaneroscopy could be a central thesis of engineering sciences. 

Cheers

Jerry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Slide Show André

[Gary Richmond]

JA, JC, List,

JA: . . .I do remember having
long discussions on the List about what used to be
a fairly standard Peircean idea that percepts,
the very data of the senses, are signs.

CSP: Percepts are signs for psychology; but they are not so
for phenomenology. CP 8.300 1904-10-03  Letters to William James

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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:03 PM Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Dear Jerry,
>
> Not sure about all of that, but I do remember having
> long discussions on the List about what used to be
> a fairly standard Peircean idea that percepts,
> the very data of the senses, are signs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 8/24/2021 7:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
> > List:
> >
> >> On Aug 24, 2021, at 11:39 AM,
> >>
> >> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
> semeiotic.
> >
> > This sentence is a remarkable example of how emotional rhetorical
> thrusts generate the thoughts  that make no sense in the language of CSP.
> >
> > Units of thoughts have units of meaning.   These two concepts are
> inseparable.
> >
> > In the engineering sciences, especially the epistemology and ontology of
> pragmatic necessities, the connections between phaneroscopy and semiotics
> are essential to ethical actions.
> >
> > The graphic diagrams that illustrate the iconic forms of engineering
> work connect, necessarily, the semeiotic with the phaneroscopy. Indeed, the
> connections of symbols with the indices of the diagrams derived from
> semiotic and phaneroscopy could be a central thesis of engineering sciences.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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] Slide Show André

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Jerry,

Not sure about all of that, but I do remember having
long discussions on the List about what used to be
a fairly standard Peircean idea that percepts,
the very data of the senses, are signs.

Regards,

Jon

On 8/24/2021 7:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:

List:


On Aug 24, 2021, at 11:39 AM,

On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not semeiotic.


This sentence is a remarkable example of how emotional rhetorical thrusts 
generate the thoughts  that make no sense in the language of CSP.

Units of thoughts have units of meaning.   These two concepts are inseparable.

In the engineering sciences, especially the epistemology and ontology of 
pragmatic necessities, the connections between phaneroscopy and semiotics are 
essential to ethical actions.

The graphic diagrams that illustrate the iconic forms of engineering work 
connect, necessarily, the semeiotic with the phaneroscopy. Indeed, the 
connections of symbols with the indices of the diagrams derived from semiotic 
and phaneroscopy could be a central thesis of engineering sciences.

Cheers

Jerry

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[Gary Richmond]

Gary F, List,

I know I'm not alone in wishing that more of Peirce's correspondence were
published sooner than later. It seems to me that occasionally certain
matters appear more clearly -- as simply or more directly -- expressed in
that informal medium than in papers published or in draft form. For
example, in the letter to James from which you posted an excerpt today we
read:

CSP: The standards of certainty must be different in different sciences,
the principles to which one science appeals altogether different from those
of the other. From the point of view of logic and methodical development
the distinctions are of the greatest concern. Phenomenology has no right to
appeal to logic, except to deductive logic. On the contrary, logic must be
founded on phenomenology.


One can, of course, disagree with him in this matter; but it is clear that
this is indeed Peirce's view: *logic* (as semeiotic) *is necessarily
"founded on phenomenology" and not vice versa*. And, of course, in this
particular case the view expressed in the letter is supported by other more
formal writings.

Somewhat less frequently one finds a passage in a letter of his which can
give one pause. For example, in this very same letter he comments:

CSP: I am not sure that it will do to call this science *phenomenology* owing
to Hegel's *Phänomenologie* being somewhat different. But I am not sure
that Hegel ought not to have it named after his attempt.


Now some, for example JAS, might argue that as this was not his published
view, and since he both expresses uncertainty in the matter as well as
ultimately settling on 'phaneroscopy' as the preferred name of the science
he's developing, that we too should call Peirce's science (or 'science
egg') *phaneroscopy.* Yet, in the ethics of terminology an important point
is being made here by Peirce, namely, that the *origina*l attempt to
develop this *sort* of phenomenology (even if it is "somewhat different")
was, in fact, Hegel's.

Well, as you no doubt know, I tend to imagine that a fully developed
Peircean phenomenology will quasi-necessarily have branches, and that *if*
this eventually comes to be the case that it would make some sense -- even
in terms of the ethics of terminology just commented on -- to refer to the
entire science as *phenomenology*, and only the first methodological branch
of it as *phaneroscopy*.

But I say this only in passing as I also am eager to see what direction the
slow read goes now that there does appear to be some progress towards
agreement on at least certain principles.

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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 4:44 PM  wrote:

> Jon A.S., John S., list,
>
> Perhaps we are making some progress in this reading of ADT’s talk, if John
> is ready to admit that Peirce’s phenomenology is *a separate science*
> from mathematics, that it occupies a place in the hierarchy below
> mathematics *but above all other sciences*, and that its focus on
> *experience* makes it *different from any other science*. (I think you
> must be ready to admit this, John, since you took it as an insult when I
> said that you *haven’t* admitted it before!)
>
> GF (previously): Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly
> clear that the key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after
> he renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is *experience*.
>
> JAS: Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of 
> *experience
> *is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce,
> experience is strictly *cognitive *(i.e., semiosic) and *involuntary*,
> constraints that do not apply to the phaneron as a whole.
>
> GF: Yes, the time has come for examining the relation between *experience*
> and *the phaneron*. André mentions in slide 32 (already posted) that “the
> term *phaneron* was coined in late October 1904 after an exchange with
> William James.” To provide more context for this discussion, I’ll post here
> some excerpts from that “exchange,” quoting those parts of the letter to
> James (CP 8.286-301) where Peirce writes explicitly about phenomenology.
>
>
>
> CSP: … As I understand you, then, the proposition which you are arguing is
> a proposition in what I have called *phenomenology,* that is, just the
> analysis of what kind of constituents there are in our thoughts and lives,
> (whether these be valid or invalid being quite aside from the question). It
> is a branch of philosophy I am most deeply interested in and which I have
> worked upon almost as much as I have upon logic. It has nothing to do with
> psychology. …
>
> Perhaps the most important aspect of the series of papers of which the one
> you send me is the first, will prove to be that it shows so clearly that
> phenomenology is one science and 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[gnox]

Jon A.S., John S., list,

Perhaps we are making some progress in this reading of ADT’s talk, if John is 
ready to admit that Peirce’s phenomenology is a separate science from 
mathematics, that it occupies a place in the hierarchy below mathematics but 
above all other sciences, and that its focus on experience makes it different 
from any other science. (I think you must be ready to admit this, John, since 
you took it as an insult when I said that you haven’t admitted it before!) 

GF (previously): Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear 
that the key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he 
renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience.

JAS: Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of 
experience is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce, 
experience is strictly cognitive (i.e., semiosic) and involuntary, constraints 
that do not apply to the phaneron as a whole.

GF: Yes, the time has come for examining the relation between experience and 
the phaneron. André mentions in slide 32 (already posted) that “the term 
phaneron was coined in late October 1904 after an exchange with William James.” 
To provide more context for this discussion, I’ll post here some excerpts from 
that “exchange,” quoting those parts of the letter to James (CP 8.286-301) 
where Peirce writes explicitly about phenomenology. 

 

CSP: … As I understand you, then, the proposition which you are arguing is a 
proposition in what I have called phenomenology, that is, just the analysis of 
what kind of constituents there are in our thoughts and lives, (whether these 
be valid or invalid being quite aside from the question). It is a branch of 
philosophy I am most deeply interested in and which I have worked upon almost 
as much as I have upon logic. It has nothing to do with psychology. …

Perhaps the most important aspect of the series of papers of which the one you 
send me is the first, will prove to be that it shows so clearly that 
phenomenology is one science and psychology a very different one. I know that 
you are not inclined to see much value in distinguishing between one science 
and another. But my opinion is that it is absolutely necessary to any progress. 
The standards of certainty must be different in different sciences, the 
principles to which one science appeals altogether different from those of the 
other. From the point of view of logic and methodical development the 
distinctions are of the greatest concern. Phenomenology has no right to appeal 
to logic, except to deductive logic. On the contrary, logic must be founded on 
phenomenology. Psychology, you may say, observes the same facts as 
phenomenology does. No. It does not observe the same facts. It looks upon the 
same world; — the same world that the astronomer looks at. But what it observes 
in that world is different. Psychology of all sciences stands most in need of 
the discoveries of the logician, which he makes by the aid of the 
phenomenologist.

I am not sure that it will do to call this science phenomenology owing to 
Hegel's Phänomenologie being somewhat different. But I am not sure that Hegel 
ought not to have it named after his attempt. …

My “phenomenon” for which I must invent a new word is very near your “pure 
experience” but not quite since I do not exclude time and also speak of only 
one “phenomenon.”

 

GF: The “new word” he invented was, of course, “phaneron.” To contrast it with 
Peirce’s usage of “experience,” the first thing I’d say is that “phaneron” 
refers to the collective total of whatever is or (can be) experienced, rather 
than the experience itself (considered as something that happens or occurs to a 
“subject of experience”). But Peirce also says that the practice of 
phenomenology/ phaneroscopy itself does not assume a distinction between 
experience and what is experienced, or between “subjective” and “objective” 
experience — or, as he put it elsewhere, between consciousness and the 
“contents of consciousness.” 

Anyway, we’ll have to sort this out in more detail later, with direct 
quotations if necessary. We will no doubt continue to get alternative 
interpretations posted by others, who are welcome to post them, but unless they 
are based directly on something Peirce actually wrote about the subject, I 
don’t see much point in arguing for or against them.

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 24-Aug-21 13:00
To: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

 

Gary F., List:

GF: Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the key 
word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it 
“phaneroscopy”) is experience.

Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of experience 
is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce, experience is 
strictly cognitive (i.e., semiosic) and 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

erratum

"JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
their
reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams. "

The quote is of JFS, John Sowa, not JAS, Jon Alan Schmidt.

GR

“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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> John, List,
>
> Diagrams are *signs *(3ns). In the 10-fold classification of signs
> Peirce's examples of two of the ten classes references diagrams: class 2,
> the rhematic iconic sinsign -- example: "an individual diagram" (CP 2.255);
> class 5, the (rhematic) iconic legisign -- example: "a diagram, apart from
> its factual individuality" (CP 2.258), that is, the diagram as a type.
>
> One can certainly imagine diagrams being 'observed' in given phanerons
> *qua* signs; and one can also quite easily and naturally see their being
> employed to *explicate* the observation of not only signs (3ns), but of
> the other two categories (1ns & 2ns) as well as of all three taken together
> -- as they always do appear in the phaneron before any precisive
> abstraction has taken place. On the other hand, "qualitative possibility"
> is suited much more specifically to phenomenology.
>
> JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
> their
> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.
>
> Besides the fact that we are ostensibly discussing phenomenology, the
> first of the cenoscopic sciences and *not* metaphysics, the very last of
> them in Peirce's classification of sciences, it has been argued here by
> just about everyone (*if* not everyone) that mathematics and logic do
> indeed have important roles to play in the development of phenomenology
> and, I would add, in the explication of its findings.
>
> But it has also been strenuously argued that mathematics and logic (and
> diagrams) should not and, in truth, *cannot* replace the specific methods
> and observed content of the science of phaneroscopy. Arguments to the
> contrary here continue to conflate the *role* and *value* of mathematics
> and logic in phenomenology with phenomenology itself. That is an error
> which no phenomenologist, such as De Tienne, would ever make, while those
> who make it appear to me to be much more lacking in aptitude and
> competence in phaneroscopy than De Tienne is in mathematics and logic. The
> attempt to reduce phaneroscopy to the latter is sure to fail on Peircean
> principles.
>
> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_6606455968471705719_m_-8308195017208817267_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:
>
>> Gary R, List,
>>
>> I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about Peirce's entire body of
>> work and his understanding of the interconnections and developments
>> over the years.  But ADT is not a mathematician or logician, and
>> Peirce was.
>>
>> GR:  But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
>> merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
>> many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
>> based on them, etc.
>>
>> That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly emphasized the role of
>> mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning throughout his career.
>> And he repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base their
>> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
>> 358 occurrences the word 'diagram' (with various endings).
>>
>> For more about diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
>> mathematicians from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
>> the first ten slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf
>>
>> See below for my recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
>> revision, I am not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
>> general, but I am claiming that he did not understand the math.
>>
>> John
>>
>> 
>>
>> The original slide 25 by ADT:
>>
>> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we
>> cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
>> experience.
>>
>> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
>> figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
>> want to sort out its laws, its 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

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

I don't conflate phenomenology with mathematics or with semiotics! I
gave a clear quotation about the difference between experience and
analysis:

--

Instead, my understanding is that, as Peirce writes,  we must
discriminate "between an inductive and a hypothetic explanation of
the facts of human life. We have seen that every fact requires two
kinds of explanation; the one proceeds by induction to replace its
subject by a wider one, the other proceeds by hypothesis to replace
its predicate by a deeper one. We have seen that these two
explanations never coincide that both are indispensable….7.581 

I interpret or misinterpret this to mean that Consciousness is the
action within the phaneroscopy and operates within the three modes as
outlined in 7.551 et al, which is that of primarily acknowledging the
'percepts', and associating or classifying them,  and Mathematics
provides the hypothetical explanations, which makes them
'teleological or purposive.7.570.


-

The difference of opinion I am having with JAS has nothing to do
with the above differentiation between 'inductive and hypothetic
explanations'.  Instead, it's a difference of opinion about the
nature of 'that which is experienced'. I am saying that 'that which
is experienced' functions within a triadic interaction of
O-R-I...where O is that phaneron, and R is 'me' as
He-Who-Experiences-Oand I would be II. So, an example would be a
Qualisign, or any of the SinSigns.  I consider that these experiences
- that pure feeling found within the Qualisign, that brute reaction
found within a Sinsign - are experiences within the phaneron. And
triadic. 

JAS seems to be saying that any and all triadic interactions include
3ns..and I disagree.

That's where it's at. An, as usual, great difference between JAS and
myself - 

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21  2:17 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, Jon, List,
 ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
  This is a clear example of what I've called the conflation and
attempted reduction of phenomenology to logic as semiotic. The
examples of signs which Edwina gives are found and developed in
semeiotic grammar (the first of the three branches of the
classificatory later science of logic as semeiotic) based on the
phaneroscopic findings of categoriality in phenomenology. This would
seem to put the cart before the horse.
  But this has been argued to death; and it would appear that those
who would conflate phenomenology with mathematics and/or semeiotic
appear unable or unwilling to imagine a phaneroscopic science such as
that conceived of by Peirce. It appears that they would either reduce
phenomenology to a kind of mathematics or semeiotics or they would
attempt to eliminate it altogether.
 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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS, list

If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. 

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
 On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] 
 On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, I think a more accurate statement would be

In my opinion...the statements below exhibit confusion..etc etc.

In other words - this is YOUR opinion. It would be 'nice' if you
would acknowledge that YOU have an opinion, and oddly enough, other
people have different opinions!! Instead, you write as if YOUR
opinion is the ultimate truth!

 I have a different analysis, and I disagree that 'all semiosis
"involves 3ns which is mediation as distinguished from reaction..et. 

I consider that all sensate interaction is triadic - as I said; for
example - a Qualsign and the Sinsigns. And I disagree that all
genuine triadic relations are 'manifestations of 3ns'. 

So, as I said - we'll simply have to disagree.

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21  1:51 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 The statements below exhibit confusion of the categories themselves
as discovered in phaneroscopy with "categorical modes" as employed in
speculative grammar for sign classification. All semiosis involves
3ns, which is mediation as distinguished from reaction (2ns) and
quality (1ns). All genuine triadic relations, including any sign
(qualisign/sinsign/legisign) representing its object
(iconically/indexically/symbolically) for its interpretant (as a
rheme/dicisign/argument), are manifestations of 3ns. On the other
hand, all "sensate interaction" is dyadic, not triadic. 
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:34 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS

We'll just have to disagree.

I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is
triadic and is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same
with a Dicent Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and
is NOT cognitive. No Thirdness involved.

That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that
cognition [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction
between X and Y is triadic [O-R-I] .

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21  1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is
triadic.
 Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the
mind as quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they
are decidedly  not triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS, list

If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. 

Edwina 

On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
 On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] 
 On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.

But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 

Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact. 

Edwina 


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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, Jon, List,

ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions
as a stimulus - then it is triadic.

This is a clear example of what I've called the conflation and attempted
reduction of *phenomenology* to *logic as semiotic*. The examples of signs
which Edwina gives are found and developed in *semeiotic grammar* (the
first of the three branches of the classificatory later science of *logic
as semeiotic*) *based on the phaneroscopic findings of categoriality
in phenomenology*. This would seem to put the cart before the horse.

But this has been argued to death; and it would appear that those who would
conflate phenomenology with mathematics and/or semeiotic appear unable or
unwilling to imagine a phaneroscopic science such as that conceived of by
Peirce. It appears that they would either reduce phenomenology to a kind of
mathematics or semeiotics or they would attempt to eliminate it altogether.

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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic.
> As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic
> sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a
> stimulus - then it is triadic.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
>
>
> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
> semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the
> mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality
> (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> List
>>
>> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
>> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
>> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since all
>> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided
>> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique,
>> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
>>
>> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
>> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction,
>> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical
>> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
>>
>> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go
>> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of
>> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism,
>> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but
>> within that objective reality with which we interact.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

Helmut, List,

Thanks for the clarification.

As I recall, just before we began this slow read I suggested, as I have in
past slow reads, that for the integrity of especially the archives of the
read that it would probably be best not to change the subject line; but it
was just a suggestion and there is no blame.

I long ago learned that members of Peirce-L will do whatever they wish to
do whatever I as List moderator might suggest. For the most part I'm ok
with that.

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 Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:03 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Gary, Gary, John, List,
>
> That wasnt John but me, who changed the subject line. Just so you dont
> blame John!
>
> Best, Helmut
>
>
>  24. August 2021 um 07:01 Uhr
>  "Gary Richmond" 
> wrote:
> Gary F, John, List,
>
> JFS wrote:
>
> Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
> slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.
>
> I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
> it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.
>
> But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it merely
> expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your many, many
> years concerning yourself with diagrams: EGs and the CGs based on them,
> etc.
>
> 'Diagram' has connotations and meaning applications which extend far
> beyond "qualitative possibility" so that the term is, in my opinion, at
> very least confusing *in this context* because of that. Despite Peirce's
> broad definition of 'diagram' I see no reason why it should be considered
> "the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and
> continuing in other slides as well." As I see it this is just more of your
> valorizing mathematics and glossing over and trivializing phenomenology,
> neither one being well-served in the present context nor expressing
> Peirce's view of the matter.
>
>  "Qualitative possibility" is Peirce's expression with specific
> application to phaneroscopy/phenomenology and, indeed, your thread
> "possibility" has little to nothing to do with phaneroscopy, so it's quite
> appropriate (and telling) that you changed the Subject line.
>
> Meanwhile, if there are any scholars who have made a serious study of
> Peirce's phenomenology they certainly include Andre De Tienne whose
> dissertation already took up the topic in some depth. And this is one of
> the reasons that he was a major consultant in the development of Richard
> Kenneth Atkins recent monograph, *Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology:
> Analysis and Consciousness*.
>
> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:26 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:
>
>> Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List,
>>
>> Thanks, Gary, for that quotation.  I often search CP and EP before
>> commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done
>> that.  I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative
>> possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three
>> modes of being.
>>
>> CSP:  They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the
>> being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in
>> the future.  (CP 1.23)
>>
>> But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram'
>> is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon,
>> (2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and
>> patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a
>> representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an
>> essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other
>> representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind,
>> and the ordinary languages that people speak and write.
>>
>> Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
>> slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.
>>
>> I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but
>> it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.
>>
>> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

The statements below exhibit confusion of the categories themselves as
discovered in phaneroscopy with "categorical modes" as employed in
speculative grammar for sign classification. All semiosis involves 3ns,
which is mediation as distinguished from reaction (2ns) and quality (1ns).
All genuine triadic relations, including any sign
(qualisign/sinsign/legisign) representing its object
(iconically/indexically/symbolically) for its interpretant (as a
rheme/dicisign/argument), are manifestations of 3ns. On the other hand, all
"sensate interaction" is dyadic, not triadic.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:34 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS
>
> We'll just have to disagree.
>
> I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is triadic and
> is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same with a Dicent
> Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and is NOT cognitive. No
> Thirdness involved.
>
> That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that cognition
> [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction between X and Y is
> triadic [O-R-I] .
>
> Edwina
>
> On Tue 24/08/21 1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
> semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
>
>
> Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the mind as
> quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they are decidedly not
> triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> JAS, list
>>
>> If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic.
>> As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic
>> sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a
>> stimulus - then it is triadic.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
>> sent:
>>
>> Edwina, List:
>>
>> ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
>> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
>> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
>> semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the
>> mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality
>> (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> List
>>>
>>> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
>>> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
>>> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since all
>>> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided
>>> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique,
>>> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
>>>
>>> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
>>> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction,
>>> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical
>>> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
>>>
>>> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go
>>> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of
>>> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism,
>>> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but
>>> within that objective reality with which we interact.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Gary Richmond]

John, List,

Diagrams are *signs *(3ns). In the 10-fold classification of signs Peirce's
examples of two of the ten classes references diagrams: class 2, the
rhematic iconic sinsign -- example: "an individual diagram" (CP 2.255);
class 5, the (rhematic) iconic legisign -- example: "a diagram, apart from
its factual individuality" (CP 2.258), that is, the diagram as a type.

One can certainly imagine diagrams being 'observed' in given phanerons *qua*
signs; and one can also quite easily and naturally see their being employed
to *explicate* the observation of not only signs (3ns), but of the other
two categories (1ns & 2ns) as well as of all three taken together -- as
they always do appear in the phaneron before any precisive abstraction has
taken place. On the other hand, "qualitative possibility" is suited much
more specifically to phenomenology.

JAS: And he [Peirce] repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base
their
reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.

Besides the fact that we are ostensibly discussing phenomenology, the first
of the cenoscopic sciences and *not* metaphysics, the very last of them in
Peirce's classification of sciences, it has been argued here by just about
everyone (*if* not everyone) that mathematics and logic do indeed have
important roles to play in the development of phenomenology and, I would
add, in the explication of its findings.

But it has also been strenuously argued that mathematics and logic (and
diagrams) should not and, in truth, *cannot* replace the specific methods
and observed content of the science of phaneroscopy. Arguments to the
contrary here continue to conflate the *role* and *value* of mathematics
and logic in phenomenology with phenomenology itself. That is an error
which no phenomenologist, such as De Tienne, would ever make, while those
who make it appear to me to be much more lacking in aptitude and
competence in phaneroscopy than De Tienne is in mathematics and logic. The
attempt to reduce phaneroscopy to the latter is sure to fail on Peircean
principles.

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*








Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#m_-8308195017208817267_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:39 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> Gary R, List,
>
> I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about Peirce's entire body of
> work and his understanding of the interconnections and developments
> over the years.  But ADT is not a mathematician or logician, and
> Peirce was.
>
> GR:  But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
> merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
> many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
> based on them, etc.
>
> That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly emphasized the role of
> mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning throughout his career.
> And he repeatedly derided "metaphysicians" who did not base their
> reasoning on logic, mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
> 358 occurrences the word 'diagram' (with various endings).
>
> For more about diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
> mathematicians from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
> the first ten slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf
>
> See below for my recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
> revision, I am not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
> general, but I am claiming that he did not understand the math.
>
> John
>
> 
>
> The original slide 25 by ADT:
>
> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, we
> cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out what goes on in
> experience.
>
> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
> figure out the all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
> want to sort out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
> and disguises.
>
> • As a point of method, however, given that mathematics is the “first”
> stage of research in the heuristic schema, how do we transition out of
> it into a concern no longer detached from but attached to the
> conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world, nature,
>
> 
>
> A revised version of slide 25 suggested by JFS:
>
> • Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal necessities, the
> phenomenologist must map any mathematical interpretation to a diagram
> that can help us figure out what goes on in experience.
>
> • Yet we cannot ignore the natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

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

We'll just have to disagree.

I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is
triadic and is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same
with a Dicent Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and
is NOT cognitive. No Thirdness involved.

That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that
cognition [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction
between X and Y is triadic [O-R-I] .

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21  1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is
triadic.
 Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the
mind as quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they
are decidedly  not triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS, list

If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. 

Edwina 

On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
 On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] 
 On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.

But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 

Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact. 

Edwina 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.


Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly *present *to the mind as
quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they are decidedly *not
*triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic.
> As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic
> sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a
> stimulus - then it is triadic.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
>
>
> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
> semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the
> mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality
> (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> List
>>
>> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
>> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
>> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since all
>> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided
>> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique,
>> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
>>
>> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
>> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction,
>> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical
>> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
>>
>> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go
>> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of
>> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism,
>> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but
>> within that objective reality with which we interact.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

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

If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. 

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
 On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] 
 On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.

But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 

Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact. 

Edwina   


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

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[Helmut Raulien]

Gary, Gary, John, List,

 

That wasnt John but me, who changed the subject line. Just so you dont blame John!

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

 24. August 2021 um 07:01 Uhr
 "Gary Richmond" 
wrote:







Gary F, John, List,

 

JFS wrote:





Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.





I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.





But this is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it merely expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your many, many years concerning yourself with diagrams: EGs and the CGs based on them, etc. 

 

'Diagram' has connotations and meaning applications which extend far beyond "qualitative possibility" so that the term is, in my opinion, at very least confusing in this context because of that. Despite Peirce's broad definition of 'diagram' I see no reason why it should be considered "the best word to use in ADT's slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well." As I see it this is just more of your valorizing mathematics and glossing over and trivializing phenomenology, neither one being well-served in the present context nor expressing Peirce's view of the matter. 

 

 "Qualitative possibility" is Peirce's _expression_ with specific application to phaneroscopy/phenomenology and, indeed, your thread "possibility" has little to nothing to do with phaneroscopy, so it's quite appropriate (and telling) that you changed the Subject line.

 

Meanwhile, if there are any scholars who have made a serious study of Peirce's phenomenology they certainly include Andre De Tienne whose dissertation already took up the topic in some depth. And this is one of the reasons that he was a major consultant in the development of Richard Kenneth Atkins recent monograph, Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness.

 

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





 

















 

	
		
			
			Virus-free. www.avg.com
		
	



 


On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:26 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:


Gary F, Helmut, Jerry, List,

Thanks, Gary, for that quotation.  I often search CP and EP before
commenting on Peirce's terms, and I admit that I should have done
that.  I agree that in Peirce's quotation for "positive qualitative
possibility", it is a useful term -- especially in the context of three
modes of being.

CSP:  They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the
being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in
the future.  (CP 1.23)

But in the context of ATD's slide 25 (and later), the word 'diagram'
is a kind of "positive qualitative possibility" that is (1) an icon,
(2) a general way of representing mathematical structures and
patterns, (3) a basis for necessary (mathematical) reasoning, (4) a
representation suitable for analogies and metaphors, and (5) an
essential step in mappings to an open-ended variety of other
representations, including algebraic notations, images of any kind,
and the ordinary languages that people speak and write.

Therefore, I believe that 'diagram' is the best word to use in ADT's
slides, starting with slide 25 and continuing in other slides as well.

I admit that the term 'qualitative possibility' could have been used, but it lacks the rich connections to the entire body of Peirce's writings.

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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27 WAS possibility WAS Andre De Tienne: Slow Read slide 27

[John F. Sowa]

Gary R, List,

I have a high regard for ADT's expertise about
Peirce's entire body of
work and his understanding of the
interconnections and developments
over the years.  But ADT is not a
mathematician or logician, and
Peirce was.

GR:  But this
is just your opinion, John, and it seems to me that it
merely
expresses your predilection for the term 'diagram' given your
many,
many years concerning yourself with diagrams:  EGs and the CGs
based
on them, etc.

That is just your opinion.  Peirce repeatedly
emphasized the role of
mathematics, logic, and diagrammatic reasoning
throughout his career.
And he repeatedly derided
"metaphysicians" who did not base their
reasoning on logic,
mathematics and diagrams.  Please check CP for the
358 occurrences
the word 'diagram' (with various endings).

For more about
diagrammatic reasoning, with quotations from other
mathematicians
from Euclid and Archimedes to the present, please see
the first ten
slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf

See below for my
recommended change to ADT's slide 25.  In making that
revision, I am
not challenging ADT's knowledge of Peirce's writings in
general, but
I am claiming that he did not understand the math.

John



The original slide 25 by
ADT:

• Given mathematics' unbounded search for formal
necessities, we
cannot count on mathematicians to help figure out
what goes on in
experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the
natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
figure out the
all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
want to sort
out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
and
disguises.

• As a point of method, however, given that
mathematics is the “first”
stage of research in the heuristic schema,
how do we transition out of
it into a concern no longer detached from
but attached to the
conditions sustaining the cosmos, the world,
nature,



A revised
version of slide 25 suggested by JFS:

• Given mathematics'
unbounded search for formal necessities, the
phenomenologist must map
any mathematical interpretation to a diagram
that can help us figure
out what goes on in experience.

• Yet we cannot ignore the
natural urge that pushes the rest of us to
figure out the
all-too-real world that holds us under its bondage.  We
want to sort
out its laws, its structures, its composition, its guises
and
disguises.

• After a diagram is derived by mathematical
methods, the methods of
normative science would address the
conditions that relate it to the
cosmos, the world, nature.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.


On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the
mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality
(1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).

Regards,

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

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic
> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.  That is - since all
> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided
> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique,
> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
>
> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction,
> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical
> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
>
> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go
> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of
> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism,
> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but
> within that objective reality with which we interact.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

List

The phrase that 'experience is our only teacher' 5.50 is, to me, an
acknowledgement of the fact that we, as 'entities' or 'things' are in
sensate interaction with other entities or 'things'. This is
experience; the realm of our reception of the external world as the
Dynamic Object. But this perception, which is experience, is not the
same as learning. The teacher provides the Dynamic Objects - but we
must interpret them and learn. That's a second step. 
As I commented before -

 Peirce writes "all learning is  virtually reasoning; we have only
to reflect that the mere experience of a sense-reaction is not
learning. That is only something from which something can be learned,
by interpreting it. The interpretation is the learning" 7.536 

Peirce provides us with three elements of consciousness, Feeling,
Altersense and Medisense [akin to the Three Categories] 7.551, but
these are not acts of learning. Consciousness can classify, by
grouping perceptions within the element of  Medisense, but can it
Interpret?

Instead, my understanding is that, as Peirce writes,  we must
discriminate "between an inductive and a hypothetic explanation of
the facts of human life. We have seen that every fact requires two
kinds of explanation; the one proceeds by induction to replace its
subject by a wider one, the other proceeds by hypothesis to replace
its predicate by a deeper one. We have seen that these two
explanations never coincide that both are indispensable….7.581 

I interpret or misinterpret this to mean that Consciousness is the
action within the phaneroscopy and operates within the three modes as
outlined in 7.551 et al, which is that of primarily acknowledging the
'percepts', and associating or classifying them,  and Mathematics
provides the hypothetical explanations, which makes them
'teleological or purposive.7.570.

That is - I'm sure that many people live completely within the realm
of pure phenomenology or 'experience'  and even move on to the
classifying actions of induction and even, take its percepts as
'knowledge' [see Peirce's Fixation of Belief by tenacity, authority,
a priori] and do not move on to scientific analysis and
interpretation. That is, knowledge or learning requires two steps;
experience or data-gathering and analysis or hypothetic
interpretation. 

I don't see this outline within De Tienne - but - perhaps I am
'misinterpreting' him. 

Edwina
 On Tue 24/08/21 10:33 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the
key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he
renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience. For that reason I
included in a previous post links to Peirce’s remarks on  direct
experience [1] and to the chapter of my book [2] which deals more
generally with experience. That chapter quotes Peirce’s categorical
statement that “Experience is our only teacher” (CP 5.50,
EP2:153). I thought these might be useful supplements to Peirce’s
basic texts on phenomenology such as EP2:267-72. John Sowa, however,
has completely ignored  all of those sources in his argument that
“diagram” should be the key word in De Tienne’s slides about
phenomenology.


Links:
--
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm#dirxp
[2] https://gnusystems.ca/TS/xpt.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31

[John F. Sowa]

Gary F, List,

Please don't attribute anything to me that I did
not say.  I totally
agree with the following point.

GF: 
Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that
the
key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he
renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience.

Experience in the
phaneron is the starting point of phenomenology for
Peirce,
Aristotle, Hegel, Husserl...  Aristotle's term, "pathemata tes
psyches", can be translated directly to "experience in the
phaneron".
That is from the first paragraph of On
Interpretation, which was a
critical text for the scholastics
Peirce admired.

GF:  John Sowa, however, has completely ignored
all of those sources
in his argument that “diagram” should be the key
word in De Tienne’s
slides about phenomenology.

No.  I
showed how ADT's slide 25 could be stated more clearly and
precisely
by using the word 'diagram'.  I also said that he should
continue to
use that word in later slides, but certainly not to the
exclusion of
other words that Peirce explicitly used.

We were having a
friendly discussion of these issues.  Why did you
suddenly turn it
into a blatant insult?

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.