date:20210916

Edwina, List:

ET: To me, that is not a science but a process of classification of
experience.

Peirce identifies three kinds of sciences--descriptive, classificatory, and
nomological--so according to him, the fact that phaneroscopy is
classificatory does not disqualify it from being a science. The first two
branches of semeiotic are largely classificatory regarding signs in general
(speculative grammar) and arguments in particular (logical critic).

ET: It doesn't move from categorizing this input data into any analysis of
the relations of the modes of the data within a whole function or semiosic
process.

Neither does mathematics, esthetics, or ethics. Does that disqualify them
from being sciences, as well?

ET: It would be like, in a lab, labelling the different insect larvae - and
even, labelling their phases of growth. But there would be no analysis of
the processes-of-morphological change.

This sounds like the practice of a descriptive and classificatory science
rather than a nomological science, but it is still a science. Peirce
suggests that over time, descriptive sciences tend to become
classificatory, and classificatory sciences tend to become nomological (CP
7.85, 1902).

ET: That is, no movement from the DO-IO phase into the R analytic phase and
the resultant Interpretant phase.

This would be an application of speculative grammar rather than
phaneroscopy, but where does Peirce ever explicitly state (or even imply)
that the object, the representamen, and the interpretant are "phases"? As
John Sowa requested, "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please
give exact quotations" (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00146.html). According
to Peirce, "A *Representamen *is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its *Object*, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its *Interpretant*" (CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903).

ET: I think that this gathering and labelling of data about the environment
is a vital process in the carrying out of science - but- on its own, I
don't see it as science.

Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:57 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> You are ignoring that I said that phaneroscopy is the reception of data
> [i.e., in the DO, IO phase of interaction with the environment] AND
> that the person in this phase then experiences and acknowledges the
> categorical distinctions of this data, within the categorical modes of
> quality, reaction, continuity, or 1ns, 2ns, 3ns.
>
> To me, that is not a science but a process of classification of
> experience.  It doesn't move from categorizing this input data [oh dear, a
> heretical word 'input'] into any analysis of the relations of the modes of
> the data within a whole function or semiosic process. It would be like, in
> a lab, labelling the different insect larvae - and even, labelling their
> phases of growth. But there would be no analysis of the
> processes-of-morphological change. That is, no movement from the DO-IO
> phase into the R analytic phase and the resultant Interpretant phase.
>
> I think that this gathering and labelling of data about the environment is
> a vital process in the carrying out of science - but- on its own, I don't
> see it as science...which, in my view, requires the mediation of the R
> phase.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 16/09/21 8:44 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> John, List:
>
> What Peirce actually says in R 645 (https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm,
> 1909-10) is that phaneroscopy is "still in the condition of a science-egg,
> hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to
> assure the student of it that, under the fostering care that it is sure to
> enjoy, if the human culture continues long, it surely will in the future
> become a strong and beneficient science." Moreover, there are plenty of
> other passages where he straightforwardly refers to phaneroscopy (or
> phenomenology) as a science, and of course he includes it as a distinct
> branch in his mature classification of the sciences.
>
> Edwina claims that phaneroscopy is merely "the reception of data." For
> Peirce, there is much more to it than that.
>
> CSP: 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. (CP 1.286, 1904)
>
>
> That certainly sounds like a science to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan

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

Edwina, List:

ET: OMG - I disagreed with Peirce.

As I have said repeatedly, anyone is free to disagree with Peirce,
especially when this is honestly acknowledged. The problem is when someone
ascribes views to Peirce that conflict with his own explicit statements.
For example, an atheist clearly disagrees with Peirce about the reality of
God, and a pantheist clearly disagrees with Peirce about the personality
and non-immanence of God.

ET: To suggest that something is a PHASE of semiosis, is not the same as
reducing it to semiosis ...

I did not say anything about reducing something to semiosis. I said
that *phaneroscopy
*is not reducible to *semeiotic*, i.e., the study of whatever is or could
be present to the mind is not reducible to the study of signs.

ET: ... I stand by my view [my view!] that the experience of the phaneron,
is a phase of the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II, DI.

Okay, as long as there is honest acknowledgment that this was not *Peirce's
*view. Where does he ever explicitly state (or even imply) "that the
experience of the phaneron, is a phase of the semiosic process"? As John
Sowa requested, "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give
exact quotations" (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00146.html).

ET: And I totally disagree with your reduction of semiosis to Thirdness.

It is not my reduction, it is Peirce's definition. Within phaneroscopy, 1ns
is quality, 2ns is reaction, and 3ns is representation/mediation. Within
the normative sciences, 1ns is feeling, 2ns is action, and 3ns is
thought/semiosis. The constituents of the three Universes of Experience are
Ideas (1ns), Brute Actuality (2ns), and Signs (3ns). Every sign is in a
genuine *triadic *relation with its object and its interpretant (3ns),
while billiard balls colliding are in a *dyadic *relation with each other
(2ns), and the color red in itself--apart from any physical embodiment
thereof--is a *monadic *possibility (1ns).

ET: Please remember his ten classes of Signs ...

I am well aware of them. Peirce's 1903 classification of signs employs
phaneroscopic *principles*, but it is an *application *of them within
speculative grammar, the first branch of the normative science of logic as
semeiotic.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:16 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> OMG - I disagreed with Peirce. Heresy. Another example of my heretical
> nature.
>
> And I said it is a PHASE of  semiosis. To suggest that something is a
> PHASE of semiosis, is not the same as reducing it to semiosis - but - I
> stand by my view [my view!] that the experience of the phaneron, is a phase
> of the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II, DI.
>
> And I totally disagree with your reduction of semiosis to Thirdness.
> Please remember his ten classes of Signs, 2.243-
>
>  A Sinsign, for example, is in a mode of Secondness...and he says so" "is
> an actual existent thing or event which is a sign". 2.245. my emphasis.
> Gosh - are you disagreeing with Peirce???
>
> On another note, do you think it is possible, in the spirit of discussion
> rather than debate, if you would, instead of saying:
>
> "No, it is not"...could you say: 'I think that it is not; 'or..' in my
> analysis, it is not'. Or..'In my view it is not'.
>
> Your authoritarian assertion ignores that your comment is YOUR
> Interpretatioon - and might differ from someone else's. And it isn't up to
> you to judge which is 'right'; that task belongs to the community of
> scholars. Not to an individual person' [and such thoughts are also FROM
> Peirce'.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 16/09/21 6:24 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
>
>
> Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.
>
> ET: He [De Tienne] sets up this phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of
> semiosis ...
>
>
> No, it is not. Phaneroscopy is not reducible to semeiotic. All thought is
> in signs, but not everything that is or could be present to the mind is a
> sign. That is why there are three categories, only one of which (3ns)
> corresponds to signs/representation/mediation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> List
>>
>> My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
>>
>> I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object
>> interacting with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data. [And I
>> think that Peirce used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.
>>
>> It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three modes:
>> quality/reaction/continuity.
>>
>> And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its
>> categorical modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the Representamen
>> node...which must add some scientific analytic

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

 

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

You are ignoring that I said that phaneroscopy is the reception of
data [i.e., in the DO, IO phase of interaction with the environment]
AND that the person in this phase then experiences and acknowledges
the categorical distinctions of this data, within the categorical
modes of quality, reaction, continuity, or 1ns, 2ns, 3ns.

To me, that is not a science but a process of classification of
experience.  It doesn't move from categorizing this input data [oh
dear, a heretical word 'input'] into any analysis of the relations of
the modes of the data within a whole function or semiosic process. It
would be like, in a lab, labelling the different insect larvae - and
even, labelling their phases of growth. But there would be no
analysis of the processes-of-morphological change. That is, no
movement from the DO-IO phase into the R analytic phase and the
resultant Interpretant phase. 

I think that this gathering and labelling of data about the
environment is a vital process in the carrying out of science - but-
on its own, I don't see it as science...which, in my view, requires
the mediation of the R phase.

Edwina
 On Thu 16/09/21  8:44 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 John, List:
 What Peirce actually says in R 645
(https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm [1], 1909-10) is that
phaneroscopy is "still in the condition of a science-egg, hardly any
details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to assure
the student of it that, under the fostering care that it is sure to
enjoy, if the human culture continues long, it surely will in the
future become a strong and beneficient science." Moreover, there are
plenty of other passages where he straightforwardly refers to
phaneroscopy (or phenomenology) as a science, and of course he
includes it as a distinct branch in his mature classification of the
sciences. 
 Edwina claims that phaneroscopy is merely "the reception of data."
For Peirce, there is much more to it than that.
 CSP: 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. (CP 1.286, 1904) 
 That certainly sounds like a science to me.
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
-  twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:40 PM sowa @bestweb.net [4]  wrote:
  Edwina, Jon AS, List,   Peirce himself said that Phaneroscopy was
still a science egg, it had not yet become an embryo.   ET: My own
view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.  JAS: Another example
of disagreeing with Peirce.Since an egg that has not yet begun to
grow is not usually considered a member of its species, Edwina's view
is not much different from Peirce's view.   John


Links:
--
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://bestweb.net
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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

John, List:

What Peirce actually says in R 645 (https://gnusystems.ca/howtodefine.htm,
1909-10) is that phaneroscopy is "still in the condition of a science-egg,
hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to
assure the student of it that, under the fostering care that it is sure to
enjoy, if the human culture continues long, it surely will in the future
become a strong and beneficient science." Moreover, there are plenty of
other passages where he straightforwardly refers to phaneroscopy (or
phenomenology) as a science, and of course he includes it as a distinct
branch in his mature classification of the sciences.

Edwina claims that phaneroscopy is merely "the reception of data." For
Peirce, there is much more to it than that.

CSP: 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. (CP 1.286, 1904)

That certainly sounds like a science to me.

Regards,

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

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:40 PM sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:

> Edwina, Jon AS, List,
>
> Peirce himself said that Phaneroscopy was still a science egg, it had not
> yet become an embryo.
>
> ET: My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
>
> JAS: Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.
>
> Since an egg that has not yet begun to grow is not usually considered a
> member of its species, Edwina's view is not much different from Peirce's
> view.
>
> 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

 

Gary F

That's hardly an argument either rejecting my view or supporting De
Tienne. It's just simple malice.

I think the evidence for De Tienne having no understanding of the
categories is obvious from his slides on wine tasting.

And what evidence do you provide that I have no understanding of the
categories?

Edwina
 On Thu 16/09/21  7:01 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
ET: … and frankly, from these slides, he [ADT] doesn't seem to
have any understanding of the categories.
 Those Who Know All about the categories have thereby spoken!
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 

 On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky
 Sent: 16-Sep-21 17:16
 To: jawb...@att.net; jerryr...@gmail.com
 Cc: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
 Subject: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read 
List

My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.

 I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object
interacting with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data.
[And I think that Peirce used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.

It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three
modes: quality/reaction/continuity. 

And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its
categorical modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the
Representamen node...which must add some scientific analytic method,
ie, mathematics, in order to interpret this data. 

But I consider De Tienne's outline ambiguous and unclear. He sets up
this phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of semiosis - as some kind
of New Age campfire experience...and doesn't show us how it fits into
a scientific analysis.

and frankly, from these slides, he doesn't seem to have any
understanding of the categories.

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

 

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

OMG - I disagreed with Peirce. Heresy. Another example of my
heretical nature. 

And I said it is a PHASE of  semiosis. To suggest that something is
a PHASE of semiosis, is not the same as reducing it to semiosis - but
- I stand by my view [my view!] that the experience of the phaneron,
is a phase of the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II, DI.

And I totally disagree with your reduction of semiosis to Thirdness.
 Please remember his ten classes of Signs, 2.243-

 A Sinsign, for example, is in a mode of Secondness...and he says
so" "is an actual existent thing or event which is a sign". 2.245. my
emphasis. Gosh - are you disagreeing with Peirce???

On another note, do you think it is possible, in the spirit of
discussion rather than debate, if you would, instead of saying: 

"No, it is not"...could you say: 'I think that it is not; 'or..' in
my analysis, it is not'. Or..'In my view it is not'.

Your authoritarian assertion ignores that your comment is YOUR
Interpretatioon - and might differ from someone else's. And it isn't
up to you to judge which is 'right'; that task belongs to the
community of scholars. Not to an individual person' [and such
thoughts are also FROM Peirce'.

Edwina
 On Thu 16/09/21  6:24 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
 Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.
 ET: He [De Tienne] sets up this phase of semiosis - and it IS a
phase of semiosis ... 
 No, it is not. Phaneroscopy is not reducible to semeiotic. All
thought is in signs, but not everything that is or could be present
to the mind is a sign. That is why there are three categories, only
one of which (3ns) corresponds to signs/representation/mediation.
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.

I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object
interacting with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data.
[And I think that Peirce used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.

It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three
modes: quality/reaction/continuity. 

And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its
categorical modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the
Representamen node...which must add some scientific analytic method,
ie, mathematics, in order to interpret this data. 

But I consider De Tienne's outline ambiguous and unclear. He sets up
this phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of semiosis - as some kind
of New Age campfire experience...and doesn't show us how it fits into
a scientific analysis.

and frankly, from these slides, he doesn't seem to have any
understanding of the categories.

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.

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

ET: … and frankly, from these slides, he [ADT] doesn't seem to have any 
understanding of the categories.

 

Those Who Know All about the categories have thereby spoken!

 

Gary f.

 

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 16-Sep-21 17:16
To: jawb...@att.net; jerryr...@gmail.com
Cc: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read

 

List

My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.

 I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object interacting 
with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data. [And I think that Peirce 
used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.

It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three modes: 
quality/reaction/continuity. 

And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its categorical 
modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the Representamen node...which 
must add some scientific analytic method, ie, mathematics, in order to 
interpret this data.

But I consider De Tienne's outline ambiguous and unclear. He sets up this phase 
of semiosis - and it IS a phase of semiosis - as some kind of New Age campfire 
experience...and doesn't show us how it fits into a scientific analysis.

and frankly, from these slides, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of 
the categories.

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

2021-09-16 Thread sowa @bestweb.net

Edwina, Jon AS, List,
  
 Peirce himself said that Phaneroscopy was still a science egg, it had not 
yet become an embryo.
  
 ET: My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
 
 JAS: Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.

  
 Since an egg that has not yet begun to grow is not usually considered a 
member of its species,
 Edwina's view is not much different from Peirce's view.
  
 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

Edwina, List:

ET: My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.


Another example of disagreeing with Peirce.

ET: He [De Tienne] sets up this phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of
semiosis ...


No, it is not. Phaneroscopy is not reducible to semeiotic. All *thought *is
in signs, but not everything that is or could be *present to the mind* is a
sign. That is why there are *three *categories, only one of which (3ns)
corresponds to signs/representation/mediation.

Regards,

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

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.
>
> I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object
> interacting with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data. [And I
> think that Peirce used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.
>
> It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three modes:
> quality/reaction/continuity.
>
> And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its
> categorical modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the Representamen
> node...which must add some scientific analytic method, ie, mathematics, in
> order to interpret this data.
>
> But I consider De Tienne's outline ambiguous and unclear. He sets up this
> phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of semiosis - as some kind of New Age
> campfire experience...and doesn't show us how it fits into a scientific
> analysis.
>
> and frankly, from these slides, he doesn't seem to have any understanding
> of the categories.
>
> 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] André De Tienne: Slow Read

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

My own view is that phaneroscopy is not a science.

 I see it as the phase of the Dynamic Object and Immediate Object
interacting with the agent; that is, it is the reception of data.
[And I think that Peirce used the term 'data' to refer to 'prebit'.

It is unprocessed data but can be experienced within the three
modes: quality/reaction/continuity. 

And that's about all it does. This data, as classified within its
categorical modes,  then awaits the analytic mediation of the
Representamen node...which must add some scientific analytic method,
ie, mathematics, in order to interpret this data.

But I consider De Tienne's outline ambiguous and unclear. He sets up
this phase of semiosis - and it IS a phase of semiosis - as some kind
of New Age campfire experience...and doesn't show us how it fits into
a scientific analysis.

and frankly, from these slides, he doesn't seem to have any
understanding of the categories.

Edwina
 On Thu 16/09/21  2:35 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
 Dear Jon, list,
 Thank you for this note ("I know you meant it in the nicest possible
way..").I believe that is the only meaning for 'wind-egg' that I know
or have ever heard of..
 With best wishes,
 Jerry R
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Jon Awbrey  wrote:
  Hi Jerry,
 I remember that ... because I was not familiar with the term
“wind-egg”
 and had to look it up ... one meaning being an unfertilized egg ...
and
 though I thought that just a little bit snarky at the time, I know
you
 meant it in the nicest possible way ... and now I'd have say it
makes
 a kind of sense if I view in light of my usual first approximation
to
 Peirce's Calcification Of Sciences (COS), to wit, the following Fig.
 Peirce Syllabus

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg
[2]
 For without the fertilization by Mathematics
 the Oöscience of Phaneroscopy will forever
 remain an armchair wannabe science.
 Cheers,
 Jon
 On 9/16/2021 1:55 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
 > Dear Gary, list:
 > 
 > 
 > Since the slow read has concluded,
 > 
 > I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial
announcement
 > 
 > (on June 11).
 > 
 > 
 > “My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my
assumption that
 > 
 > Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.
 > 
 > That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented
Phaneroscopy
 > 
 > merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily)
 > 
 > and not systematically- as a true science.”
 > 
 > 
 > So now, what is your judgment?   What is the verdict?
 > 
 > 
 > *Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?*
 > 
 > 
 > ___
 > 
 > 
 > If, as Peirce says
 > 
 > *  Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, *
 > 
 > *  hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, *
 > 
 > *  though enough to assure the student of it that … *
 > 
 >*it **surely** will in the future become a strong and
beneficent science.*
 > (R 645:2, 1909)
 > 
 > 
 > And if, as Gary says
 > 
 > *  In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) *
 > 
 > *  Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls *
 > 
 > *  “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental
conservatism.” *
 > 
 > *  The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life,
*
 > 
 > *  when it comes to making crucial decisions, *
 > 
 > *  we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” *
 > 
 > *  rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical
theories..*
 > 
 > 
 > I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously.
 > 
 > That is, it is *impossible* for me to believe a man,
 > 
 > who puts himself forth genuinely *as logician*,
 > 
 > that he would *prescribe* such an immature belief.
 > 
 > 
 > That he *has* the belief is not surprising, but there is something
*obvious*
 > that is missing here.
 > 
 > For have you forgotten the old decree?
 > 
 > 
 >Believest thou that he there spake the truth?
 > 
 >Why dost thou believe it?"
 > 
 > 
 >The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra."
 > 
 > 
 >But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.
 > 
 >-- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he,
 > 
 >least of all the belief in myself.
 > 
 > 
 >But granting that some one did say in all seriousness
 > 
 >that the poets lie too much: he was right
 > 
 >   —WE do lie too much.
 > 
 > 
 > Moreover, when Peirce admits
 > 
 > 
 > *in all the works on pedagogy that ever I read,- and they have
been many,
 > big, and heavy,-*
 > 
 > *I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of
teaching by
 > practical jokes..  *
 > 
 > *That however, describes the method of our great teacher,
Experience.  She
 > says*
 > 
 > 
 > *Open your mouth and shut your eyes*
 > 
 > *And I’ll give you something to make you wise;*
 > 
 > 
 > Would you be prepared to do this action

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49

2021-09-16 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear Gary, list:


You said:


*As for those questions, each reader of the list will have to come up with
their own answers (or else leave the questions open).*

*Nothing has been said during the slow read that would persuade me to make
substantial changes to that paper, so I’m content to let it speak for me.*



I have heard similar laments in the recent and long-forgotten past

   - and some of them very damning to our current democratic condition,

  that is, to our general (275e) political condition.



Do you ask me to prove this?

If so, you must be a rationalist, indeed.


I can prove it

-- but *only by assuming a logical principle *

 of the demonstration of which I shall give a hint in the next lecture.


With best wishes,
Jerry R


PS.


Tao Te Ching 32..

That is a wonderful recommendation that I whole-heartedly endorse.

I mean what does ephectic desire have to do with anything, *amirite*?

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:30 PM  wrote:

> Jerry R,
>
> The slow read is not *quite* concluded: there are still two more slides
> to go. Slide 50 consists of a series of questions similar to the one you
> ask here; the last slide is a graphic showing ADT’s somewhat whimsical
> portrait of a science-egg (with its various parts labelled).
>
> As for those questions, each reader of the list will have to come up with
> their own answers (or else leave the questions open). I’ve given some hints
> of my own answers along the way, and back in June I submitted a paper on
> the subject which is due to be published later this year as part of a
> collection edited by Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen and Mohammad Shafiei. Nothing
> has been said during the slow read that would persuade me to make
> substantial changes to that paper, so I’m content to let it speak for me.
>
> I wouldn’t have written such a paper if I hadn’t paid very close attention
> to Peirce’s writings that *explicitly deal with phenomenology and
> phaneroscopy*. Some of the most vociferous opinions expressed during the
> slow read came from people who consider themselves experts but obviously
> have *not* paid close attention to what *Peirce* said on the subject, and
> have even objected to Peirce’s writings on the subject being posted to the
> list (instead of his writings on mathematics, for instance). Some of these
> opinions were clearly motivated by a hostile reading
>  of ADT’s slides. I think any
> readers who still have open minds regarding phaneroscopy owe it to
> themselves to at least read everything in EP2 on the subject, if not some
> of the harder-to-find texts like R 645
>  (which is now on my website).
>
> If someone has paid close attention to the *practice* of phaneroscopy as
> described in concrete detail by Peirce, and has tried it out for himself
> (as Peirce insisted one must in order to draw any conclusions from it),
> *then* he can form and express a valid opinion about its scientific value
> (or lack thereof), as R.K. Atkins did in his book about it. I don’t believe
> that any opinions about it which *aren’t* based on such a study are worth
> arguing about. I also believe that opinions about Peirce’s philosophy which
> ignore his phenomenology/phaneroscopy are just as liable to distortion as
> opinions which ignore his mathematics or his semeiotics.
>
> I said in a previous post that phaneroscopy is pre-scientific. I don’t
> have a more direct answer to your question, so this will have to do.
>
> Gary f.
>
> } Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already
> enough names. One must know when to stop. [*Tao Te Ching* 32
> (Feng/English)] {
>
> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
>
>
>
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  *On
> Behalf Of *Jerry Rhee
> *Sent:* 16-Sep-21 13:56
> *To:* Gary Fuhrman 
> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49
>
>
>
> Dear Gary, list:
>
>
>
> Since the slow read has concluded,
>
> I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial
> announcement
>
> (on June 11).
>
>
>
> “My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption that
>
> Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.
>
> That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy
>
> merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily)
>
> and not systematically- as a true science.”
>
>
>
> So now, what is your judgment?   What is the verdict?
>
>
>
> *Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?*
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
> If, as Peirce says
>
>   *Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg,*
>
>   *hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable,*
>
>   *though enough to assure the student of it that …*
>
>   *it surely will in the future become a strong and beneficent science.*
> (R 645:2, 1909)
>
>
>
> And if, as Gary says
>
>   *In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898)*
>
>   *Peirce asserts his allegiance to

RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49

Jerry R,

The slow read is not quite concluded: there are still two more slides to go. 
Slide 50 consists of a series of questions similar to the one you ask here; the 
last slide is a graphic showing ADT’s somewhat whimsical portrait of a 
science-egg (with its various parts labelled). 

As for those questions, each reader of the list will have to come up with their 
own answers (or else leave the questions open). I’ve given some hints of my own 
answers along the way, and back in June I submitted a paper on the subject 
which is due to be published later this year as part of a collection edited by 
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen and Mohammad Shafiei. Nothing has been said during the 
slow read that would persuade me to make substantial changes to that paper, so 
I’m content to let it speak for me.

I wouldn’t have written such a paper if I hadn’t paid very close attention to 
Peirce’s writings that explicitly deal with phenomenology and phaneroscopy. 
Some of the most vociferous opinions expressed during the slow read came from 
people who consider themselves experts but obviously have not paid close 
attention to what Peirce said on the subject, and have even objected to 
Peirce’s writings on the subject being posted to the list (instead of his 
writings on mathematics, for instance). Some of these opinions were clearly 
motivated by a hostile reading   of 
ADT’s slides. I think any readers who still have open minds regarding 
phaneroscopy owe it to themselves to at least read everything in EP2 on the 
subject, if not some of the harder-to-find texts like R 645 
  (which is now on my website). 

If someone has paid close attention to the practice of phaneroscopy as 
described in concrete detail by Peirce, and has tried it out for himself (as 
Peirce insisted one must in order to draw any conclusions from it), then he can 
form and express a valid opinion about its scientific value (or lack thereof), 
as R.K. Atkins did in his book about it. I don’t believe that any opinions 
about it which aren’t based on such a study are worth arguing about. I also 
believe that opinions about Peirce’s philosophy which ignore his 
phenomenology/phaneroscopy are just as liable to distortion as opinions which 
ignore his mathematics or his semeiotics.

I said in a previous post that phaneroscopy is pre-scientific. I don’t have a 
more direct answer to your question, so this will have to do.

Gary f.

} Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already enough 
names. One must know when to stop. [Tao Te Ching 32  (Feng/English)] {

  https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Jerry Rhee
Sent: 16-Sep-21 13:56
To: Gary Fuhrman 
Cc: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49

 

Dear Gary, list:

 

Since the slow read has concluded, 

I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial announcement 

(on June 11).

 

“My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption that 

Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.  

That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy 

merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily) 

and not systematically- as a true science.”

 

So now, what is your judgment?   What is the verdict?

 

Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?

 

___

 

If, as Peirce says

  Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, 

  hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, 

  though enough to assure the student of it that … 

  it surely will in the future become a strong and beneficent science. (R 
645:2, 1909)

 

And if, as Gary says

  In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) 

  Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls 

  “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” 

  The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, 

  when it comes to making crucial decisions, 

  we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” 

  rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories..

 

I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously.

That is, it is impossible for me to believe a man, 

who puts himself forth genuinely as logician, 

that he would prescribe such an immature belief.

 

That he has the belief is not surprising, but there is something obvious that 
is missing here.  

For have you forgotten the old decree?

 

  Believest thou that he there spake the truth? 

  Why dost thou believe it?"

 

  The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra." 

 

  But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.

  -- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he, 

  least of all the belief in myself. 

 

  But granting that some one did say in all seriousness 

  that the poets lie too much: he was right

 —WE do lie too much.

 

Moreover, when

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read Slide 49

2021-09-16 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear Jon, list,

Thank you for this note ("I know you meant it in the nicest possible
way..").
I believe *that* is the only meaning for 'wind-egg' that I know or have
ever heard of..

With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> I remember that ... because I was not familiar with the term “wind-egg”
> and had to look it up ... one meaning being an unfertilized egg ... and
> though I thought that just a little bit snarky at the time, I know you
> meant it in the nicest possible way ... and now I'd have say it makes
> a kind of sense if I view in light of my usual first approximation to
> Peirce's Calcification Of Sciences (COS), to wit, the following Fig.
>
> Peirce Syllabus
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg
>
> For without the fertilization by Mathematics
> the Oöscience of Phaneroscopy will forever
> remain an armchair wannabe science.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon
>
> On 9/16/2021 1:55 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> > Dear Gary, list:
> >
> >
> > Since the slow read has concluded,
> >
> > I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial
> announcement
> >
> > (on June 11).
> >
> >
> > “My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption
> that
> >
> > Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.
> >
> > That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy
> >
> > merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily)
> >
> > and not systematically- as a true science.”
> >
> >
> > So now, what is your judgment?   What is the verdict?
> >
> >
> > *Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?*
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> >
> > If, as Peirce says
> >
> > *  Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, *
> >
> > *  hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, *
> >
> > *  though enough to assure the student of it that … *
> >
> >*it **surely** will in the future become a strong and beneficent
> science.*
> > (R 645:2, 1909)
> >
> >
> > And if, as Gary says
> >
> > *  In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) *
> >
> > *  Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls *
> >
> > *  “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” *
> >
> > *  The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, *
> >
> > *  when it comes to making crucial decisions, *
> >
> > *  we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” *
> >
> > *  rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical
> theories..*
> >
> >
> > I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously.
> >
> > That is, it is *impossible* for me to believe a man,
> >
> > who puts himself forth genuinely *as logician*,
> >
> > that he would *prescribe* such an immature belief.
> >
> >
> > That he *has* the belief is not surprising, but there is something
> *obvious*
> > that is missing here.
> >
> > For have you forgotten the old decree?
> >
> >
> >Believest thou that he there spake the truth?
> >
> >Why dost thou believe it?"
> >
> >
> >The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra."
> >
> >
> >But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.
> >
> >-- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he,
> >
> >least of all the belief in myself.
> >
> >
> >But granting that some one did say in all seriousness
> >
> >that the poets lie too much: he was right
> >
> >   —WE do lie too much.
> >
> >
> > Moreover, when Peirce admits
> >
> >
> > *in all the works on pedagogy that ever I read,- and they have been many,
> > big, and heavy,-*
> >
> > *I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of teaching by
> > practical jokes..  *
> >
> > *That however, describes the method of our great teacher, Experience.
> She
> > says*
> >
> >
> > *Open your mouth and shut your eyes*
> >
> > *And I’ll give you something to make you wise;*
> >
> >
> > Would you be prepared to do this action because Peirce said “*Believe
> me!*’?
> >
> >
> > Would you want Experience to keep her promise-
> >
> > to take her pay in the fun of tormenting us?
> >
> >
> > I mean, *what was our experience during this slow read*?
> >
> >
> > As to what is missing,
> >
> > *  A Little Known Argument for the Being of God*
> >
> > *  A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God*
> >
> >
> > That. is (~CP 2.116),
> >
> > *We know **already** how we must proceed *
> >
> > in order to determine* what the meaning of the question is. *
> >
> > *Our sole guide must be the consideration of the use to which the answer
> is
> > to be put  *
> >
> > *--not necessarily the practical application, *
> >
> > *but in what way it is to subserve the summum bonum. *
> >
> >
> > *It is absolutely impossible that the word "Being" should bear any
> meaning
> > whatever *
> >
> > *except with reference to the summum bonum..*
> >
> >
> > *We sketch out the method and apply it to a few metaphysical conceptions,
> > such as Reality, Necessity, etc.*
> >
> > *(And then

Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read Slide 49

2021-09-16 Thread Jon Awbrey


Hi Jerry,

I remember that ... because I was not familiar with the term “wind-egg”
and had to look it up ... one meaning being an unfertilized egg ... and
though I thought that just a little bit snarky at the time, I know you
meant it in the nicest possible way ... and now I'd have say it makes
a kind of sense if I view in light of my usual first approximation to
Peirce's Calcification Of Sciences (COS), to wit, the following Fig.

Peirce Syllabus
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-syllabus.jpg

For without the fertilization by Mathematics
the Oöscience of Phaneroscopy will forever
remain an armchair wannabe science.

Cheers,

Jon

On 9/16/2021 1:55 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:

Dear Gary, list:


Since the slow read has concluded,

I would like to recall a letter sent immediately after its initial announcement

(on June 11).


“My apologies for skipping to the end but it was always my assumption that

Phaneroscopy was a wind-egg, not a science-egg.

That is, it appears, then, that Peirce always presented Phaneroscopy

merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily)

and not systematically- as a true science.”


So now, what is your judgment?   What is the verdict?


*Phaneroscopy, science-egg or wind-egg?*


___


If, as Peirce says

*  Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, *

*  hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, *

*  though enough to assure the student of it that … *

   *it **surely** will in the future become a strong and beneficent science.*
(R 645:2, 1909)


And if, as Gary says

*  In these letters (between Peirce and William James, 1898) *

*  Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls *

*  “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” *

*  The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, *

*  when it comes to making crucial decisions, *

*  we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” *

*  rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories..*


I hardly see any reason why we ought to take him seriously.

That is, it is *impossible* for me to believe a man,

who puts himself forth genuinely *as logician*,

that he would *prescribe* such an immature belief.


That he *has* the belief is not surprising, but there is something *obvious*
that is missing here.

For have you forgotten the old decree?


   Believest thou that he there spake the truth?

   Why dost thou believe it?"


   The disciple answered: "I believe in Zarathustra."


   But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.

   -- Belief doth not sanctify me, said he,

   least of all the belief in myself.


   But granting that some one did say in all seriousness

   that the poets lie too much: he was right

  —WE do lie too much.


Moreover, when Peirce admits


*in all the works on pedagogy that ever I read,- and they have been many,
big, and heavy,-*

*I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of teaching by
practical jokes..  *

*That however, describes the method of our great teacher, Experience.  She
says*


*Open your mouth and shut your eyes*

*And I’ll give you something to make you wise;*


Would you be prepared to do this action because Peirce said “*Believe me!*’?


Would you want Experience to keep her promise-

to take her pay in the fun of tormenting us?


I mean, *what was our experience during this slow read*?


As to what is missing,

*  A Little Known Argument for the Being of God*

*  A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God*


That. is (~CP 2.116),

*We know **already** how we must proceed *

in order to determine* what the meaning of the question is. *

*Our sole guide must be the consideration of the use to which the answer is
to be put  *

*--not necessarily the practical application, *

*but in what way it is to subserve the summum bonum. *


*It is absolutely impossible that the word "Being" should bear any meaning
whatever *

*except with reference to the summum bonum..*


*We sketch out the method and apply it to a few metaphysical conceptions,
such as Reality, Necessity, etc.*

*(And then CP 5.53)..*

*Everybody** should be competent to answer that of himself..*


(I would recommend looking up this section, “Everybody..”, on page 161,

edited by Turrisi in *Method of Right Thinking.  *

There is an interesting framing there in bold, which is not present in
Collected Papers.  Hope that helps!)


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 8:08 AM  wrote:


Continuing our slow read on phaneroscopy, here is the next slide of André
De Tienne’s slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu)
 site. *Conclusion:
Phaneroscopy as a “science-egg”*

Gary f.





Text:

Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, hardly any
details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to assure the
student of it that ... it surely will in the future

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

Helmut, List:

HR: on one hand, Peirce´s evolutieon theory, synechism, tychism, concept of
universal quasi-mind, is pantheistic ...

There is nothing intrinsically pantheistic about any of these aspects of
Peirce's thought. On the contrary, he *explicitly *states that "the
synechistic philosophy"--which "carries along with it the following
doctrines: first, a logical realism of the most pronounced type; second,
objective idealism; third, tychism, with its consequent thorough-going
evolutionism"--"is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God" (CP
6.162-163, 1892), which pantheism rejects.

HR: Anyway, maybe Peirce was both, a pantheist, and a theist.

By definition, it is impossible to be both a pantheist and a theist. A
pantheist denies that there is a personal God, while a theist affirms this.
A pantheist affirms that the universe itself is God, while a theist denies
this. In other words, pantheism and theism are mutually exclusive belief
systems.

HR: Are all these questions, what Peirce believed or not, really so
relevant?

It is important to acknowledge what Peirce believed in order to interpret
accurately what he wrote. This does not require agreement with his views,
just recognition of what those views were.

HR: I hope, you all would agree, that anyone may be an atheist, a
pantheist, a panentheist, a deist, or a theist, and in any case be in
accord with Peirce.

Anyone may be an atheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a deist, or a theist,
and in any case be able to draw valuable insights from Peirce's thought, as
well as apply his ideas to today's challenges. My point is that a sincere
inquirer who is genuinely seeking the truth, regardless of his/her own
beliefs, will acknowledge that Peirce himself was a theist in accordance
with his own explicit testimony--which entails that he saw no
incompatibility whatsoever between his philosophy as a whole and his
professed belief that God is the real, personal, and transcendent
(non-immanent) creator of the universe.

Regards,

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

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:03 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> List,
>
> on one hand, Peirce´s evolutieon theory, synechism, tychism, concept of
> universal quasi-mind, is pantheistic, on the other hand, Jon A. S. has
> provided many citations, that show, that Peirce was a theist. I don´t see
> this as a contradiction: There might be two supreme instances: The
> universal quasi-mind internal to the universe, resp. itself, the universe,
> *and* a God external to it. So there are two of them, like Brahman and
> Vishnu (I forgot who is who). I hope, both are benign. The gnosticists also
> have two: The supreme benign God, and a not so benign subcontractor, the
> "demiurg". This consideration of the creator of the earth as malevolent may
> have been due to the fact, that the times of the gnosticists were quite
> hard times. Anyway, maybe Peirce was both, a pantheist, and a theist. Now
> the questions remain, did he consider the universal quasi-mind for person,
> so not only in a pantheistic way? Did he consider the universe-external
> Supergod for person? But: Are all these questions, what Peirce believed or
> not, really so relevant? After all, he was not a theologist. I propose to
> happily leave these questions to the theologists, it is their dire job. I
> hope , you all would agree, that anyone may be an atheist, a pantheist, a
> panentheist, a deist, or a theist, and in any case be in accord with Peirce.
>
> 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 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] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

John, Edwina, List:

JFS: But the claims for a proof of the existence of a personal God are less
convincing.

Peirce never claims to have a *proof *of the *existence *of a personal God.
He states that a *synechist* (like himself) must *accept *the doctrine of a
personal God, and he later offers an *argument *for the *reality *of
God as *Ens
necessarium* and creator of the universe. He does claim that any sincere
inquirer who spends at least an hour a day for six or seven years
meditating upon that hypothesis will be utterly incapable of doubting it,
i.e., rationally compelled to believe it. He also adds that anyone who has *not
*performed this rigorous experiment is unfit to judge the persuasiveness of
his argument.

JFS: The Logos, by itself, is consistent with what most scientists believe,
whether deists, theists, atheists, or agnostics.

Perhaps, but the Logos being made flesh and dwelling among us is *only
*consistent
with *Christian *theism. That said, I am not aware of any passages where
Peirce discusses the doctrine of the Incarnation, let alone endorses it.

JFS: It is also consistent with the word 'transcendent', since the laws of
the universe are not made of physical stuff.

In this context, "transcendent" does not mean "non-physical," it means
"non-immanent." According to Peirce, the creator of the universe is not the
universe itself (pantheism), nor is the universe somehow "in" its creator
(panentheism).

ET: I would add that my view is that, as Jon Awbrey points out, the NA is
not an argument.

It is an argument as defined by Peirce and distinguished from an
argumentation in the very same article. "An 'Argument' is any process of
thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief. An 'Argumentation'
is an Argument proceeding upon definitely formulated premisses" (CP 6.456,
EP 2:435, 1908).

ET: This means that Peirce's many references that the term of God is an
analogy with Mind, Nature - have to be acknowledged. This fact demotes any
notion of a 'personal god'.

On the contrary, we must interpret those *analogical *references in
accordance with Peirce's *explicit *statement that a synechist (like
himself) *must *accept the doctrine of a personal God. Besides, which
specific passages are being cited here? As John Sowa requested, "For any
claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations" (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00146.html).

ET: Equally, the fact of evolution, continuous adaptive, self-organized
creation - as outlined in his writings - means that a theistic all powerful
agential creator couldn't fit in with such outlines.

Peirce never *explicitly *describes creation as "self-organized,"
while he *explicitly
*affirms theism, including his belief that God is the real and transcendent
(non-immanent) creator of the universe, as well as his belief that God's
creative activity is still ongoing. In other words, he sees no
incompatibility whatsoever between his evolutionary cosmology and the
reality of God as creator.

ET: Again, I don't think that one can take or interpret any of Peirce's
writings as 'gospel' but instead, has to see them as an argument, which
means, functioning within the full texts of all his writings.

No one is disputing this. The only context in which Peirce's writings are
"gospel" is when we are seeking ascertain *what he believed*. Anyone
denying that he was a theist who believed that God is the real, personal,
and transcendent (non-immanent) creator of the universe is overlooking or
deliberately ignoring his own *explicit *testimony.

Regards,

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

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:05 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> John, List
>
> Thank you for a coherent outline.
>
> I would add that my view is that, as Jon Awbrey points out, the NA is not
> an argument. The mere fact that he states that one must believe in this
> theism - even if one consciously rejects such a notion - means that this
> outline is not an argument, never mind that it has no basis in science or
> logic.  What is it?
>
> It is an abductive hypothesis and should be treated and interpreted as
> such. That means that it has to be placed alongside Peirce's massive
> writings about the universe, evolution, the categories, etc.
>
> This means that Peirce's many references that the term of God is an
> analogy with Mind, Nature - have to be acknowledged. This fact demotes any
> notion of a 'personal god'.
>
> Equally, the fact of evolution, continuous adaptive, self-organized
> creation - as outlined in his writings - means that a theistic all powerful
> agential creator couldn't fit in with such outlines. But a
> continuous self-organized force of nature/Mind..could fit in.
>
> Your 'logos' is another analogy, in my view, with Peirce's writings on
> Mind and Nature.
>
> Again, Ii don't think that one can take

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

2021-09-16 Thread Helmut Raulien

List,

on one hand, Peirce´s evolutieon theory, synechism, tychism, concept of universal quasi-mind, is pantheistic, on the other hand, Jon A. S. has provided many citations, that show, that Peirce was a theist. I don´t see this as a contradiction: There might be two supreme instances: The universal quasi-mind internal to the universe, resp. itself, the universe, and a God external to it. So there are two of them, like Brahman and Vishnu (I forgot who is who). I hope, both are benign. The gnosticists also have two: The supreme benign God, and a not so benign subcontractor, the "demiurg". This consideration of the creator of the earth as malevolent may have been due to the fact, that the times of the gnosticists were quite hard times. Anyway, maybe Peirce was both, a pantheist, and a theist. Now the questions remain, did he consider the universal quasi-mind for person, so not only in a pantheistic way? Did he consider the universe-external Supergod for person? But: Are all these questions, what Peirce believed or not, really so relevant? After all, he was not a theologist. I propose to happily leave these questions to the theologists, it is their dire job. I hope , you all would agree, that anyone may be an atheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a deist, or a theist, and in any case be in accord with Peirce.

Best, Helmut

16. September 2021 um 14:52 Uhr
g...@gnusystems.ca
wrote:

John, I have to agree with you on this:

JFS: There are many other religions around the world that don't seem to attribute a personality to their creator. So Peirce's claim that the NA proves that human nature requires a personal God does not seem to be convincing.

GF: It is certainly not convincing as the conclusion of an inductive argumentation. But the NA itself is not an argumentation, let alone an inductive one. Peirce simply asks the reader to practice Musement himself and see whether it leads him to belief in a personal God. Well, having done my best to practice Musement, I do not find that it leads me in that direction. I have no problem coming up with the idea of a Creator, but I can’t conceive of that Creator as a person in any sense that I recognize as valid.

On the other hand, when Peirce asks me to practice phaneroscopy and see whether it leads me to the conceptions of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness as the formal elements of the phaneron, I seem to end up with the same “categories” that he does. This is not an argumentation either, certainly not an inductive one — rather a hypothetical one, like Peirce’s “strictly hypothetical God” — yet this categorial analysis does prove highly useful in more inductive investigations.

Likewise, I think Peirce’s assumption in the NA is that belief in a personal and benevolent God is a worthy guide to conduct for everyone who holds that belief instinctively rather being convinced of it by logical argumentation.

CSP: If God Really be, and be benign, then, in view of the generally conceded truth that religion, were it but proved, would be a good outweighing all others, we should naturally expect that there would be some Argument for His Reality that should be obvious to all minds, high and low alike, that should earnestly strive to find the truth of the matter; and further, that this Argument should present its conclusion, not as a proposition of metaphysical theology, but in a form directly applicable to the conduct of life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth. (EP2:435)

GF: The recent book by Richard Kenneth Atkins on Peirce and the Conduct of Life includes quotes from the exchange of letters between Peirce and William James as Peirce was preparing his Cambridge Lectures of 1898. In these letters Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental conservatism.” The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday social life, when it comes to making crucial decisions, we ought to trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” (as we would say today) rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories. This does not, of course, apply to the conduct of scientific or philosophical inquiry. But both Musement and Phaneroscopy are essentially pre-scientific, and I think the 1908 NA is quite compatible with what Peirce called “sentimental conservatism” in 1898. In R 645 (1909) he was still self-identifying as a “conservative” and “an old-fashioned Christian.” It all goes back to his gut feelings.

My own gut feelings are different. For one thing, I don’t really feel that the Creator is benign. But I recognize that Peirce’s statement about religious belief and the conduct of life in the NA is expressed as a conditional: “If God Really be, and be benign, then …” — the value of this belief for the conduct of life is conditional on its being a gut feeling of the believer. And in that sense I agree with it.

Gary f.

} There's nothing more ruthless than life itself, and there's no other source of compassion.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

 

Gary F, List

Thank you for this post. 

I certainly find the hypothesis of the three categories  functional
in both an inductive and logical sense. And I can readily see how one
can see their operation within the experience of the phaneron. 

But as others have said, his NA outline is an abductive hypothesis
and its axioms have to be compared with his vast writings on Mind,
Nature, cosmology. There are problems with such a comparison! This
suggests that the idea of  god becomes part of religion; that is, it
becomes a personal god and provides an infrastructure or morality and
behaviour that enables the individual to live within a community...as
he says 'to the conduct of life'.

I don't know if this benevolent conduct of life is instinctive or
socially derived. Probably both, for we are, biologically,
necessarily a social species and must have some means of 'getting
along with others'. 

In these senses, I can certainly accept the NA as a religious, i.e.,
societal outline - but can't see it as an outline of the functioning
of our universe.

Edwina
 On Thu 16/09/21  8:52 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
John, I have to agree with you on this:

JFS: There are many other religions around the world that don't seem
to attribute a personality to their creator.  So Peirce's claim that
the NA proves that human nature requires a personal God does not seem
to be convincing. 

GF: It is certainly not convincing as the conclusion of an inductive
argumentation. But the NA itself is not an argumentation, let alone an
inductive one. Peirce simply asks the reader to practice Musement
himself and see whether it leads him to belief in a personal God.
Well, having done my best to practice Musement, I do not find that it
leads  me in that direction. I have no problem coming up with the idea
of a Creator, but I can’t conceive of that Creator as a person in
any sense that I recognize as valid.

On the other hand, when Peirce asks me to practice phaneroscopy and
see whether it leads me to the conceptions of Firstness, Secondness
and Thirdness as the formal elements of the phaneron, I seem to end
up with the same “categories” that he does. This is not an
argumentation either, certainly not an inductive one — rather a 
hypothetical one, like Peirce’s “strictly hypothetical God” —
yet this categorial analysis does prove highly useful in more
inductive investigations.

Likewise, I think Peirce’s assumption in the NA is that belief in
a personal and benevolent God is a worthy guide to conduct for
everyone who holds that belief  instinctively rather being convinced
of it by logical argumentation.

CSP: If God Really be, and be benign, then, in view of the generally
conceded truth that religion, were it but proved, would be a good
outweighing all others, we should naturally expect that there would
be some Argument for His Reality that should be obvious to all minds,
high and low alike, that should earnestly strive to find the truth of
the matter; and further, that this Argument should present its
conclusion, not as a proposition of metaphysical theology, but in a
form directly applicable to the conduct of life, and full of
nutrition for man's highest growth. (EP2:435) 

GF: The recent book by Richard Kenneth Atkins on Peirce and the
Conduct of Life includes quotes from the exchange of letters between
Peirce and William James as Peirce was preparing his Cambridge
Lectures of 1898. In these letters Peirce asserts his allegiance to
what he calls “conservative sentimentalism” or “sentimental
conservatism.” The basic idea is that in the conduct of everyday
social life, when it comes to making crucial decisions, we ought to
trust our instinctive or “gut feelings” (as we would say today)
rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories.
This does not, of course, apply to the conduct of scientific or
philosophical inquiry. But both Musement and Phaneroscopy are
essentially  pre-scientific, and I think the 1908 NA is quite
compatible with what Peirce called “sentimental conservatism” in
1898. In R 645 [1] (1909) he was still self-identifying as a
“conservative” and “an old-fashioned Christian.” It all goes
back to his gut feelings.

 My own gut feelings are different. For one thing, I don’t really
feel that the Creator is benign. But I recognize that Peirce’s
statement about religious belief and the conduct of life in the NA is
expressed as a conditional: “If God Really be, and be benign, then
…” — the value of this belief for the conduct of life is
conditional on its being a gut feeling of the believer. And in that
sense I agree with it.

 Gary f.
} There's nothing more ruthless than life itself, and there's no
other source of compassion. [gnox] {

 https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [2] }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu 

 On Behalf Of sowa

[PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 49

Continuing our slow read on phaneroscopy, here is the next slide of André De 
Tienne’s slideshow posted on the Peirce Edition Project (iupui.edu) 
  site. Conclusion: 
Phaneroscopy as a “science-egg”

Gary f.

 



 

Text: 

Phaneroscopy is still in the condition of a science-egg, hardly any details of 
it being as yet distinguishable, though enough to assure the student of it that 
... it surely will in the future become a strong and beneficent science. (R 
645:2, 1909) 

We need to remember that, for Peirce, sciences are living activities conducted 
by living communities of inquirers. Sciences get born and die. Their 
classification is actually akin to a natural classification. In many ways 
Peirces classification is phylogenetic in character.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

John, I have to agree with you on this:

JFS: There are many other religions around the world that don't seem to
attribute a personality to their creator.  So Peirce's claim that the NA
proves that human nature requires a personal God does not seem to be
convincing.

GF: It is certainly not convincing as the conclusion of an inductive
argumentation. But the NA itself is not an argumentation, let alone an
inductive one. Peirce simply asks the reader to practice Musement himself
and see whether it leads him to belief in a personal God. Well, having done
my best to practice Musement, I do not find that it leads me in that
direction. I have no problem coming up with the idea of a Creator, but I
can't conceive of that Creator as a person in any sense that I recognize as
valid.

On the other hand, when Peirce asks me to practice phaneroscopy and see
whether it leads me to the conceptions of Firstness, Secondness and
Thirdness as the formal elements of the phaneron, I seem to end up with the
same "categories" that he does. This is not an argumentation either,
certainly not an inductive one - rather a hypothetical one, like Peirce's
"strictly hypothetical God" - yet this categorial analysis does prove highly
useful in more inductive investigations.

Likewise, I think Peirce's assumption in the NA is that belief in a personal
and benevolent God is a worthy guide to conduct for everyone who holds that
belief instinctively rather being convinced of it by logical argumentation.

CSP: If God Really be, and be benign, then, in view of the generally
conceded truth that religion, were it but proved, would be a good
outweighing all others, we should naturally expect that there would be some
Argument for His Reality that should be obvious to all minds, high and low
alike, that should earnestly strive to find the truth of the matter; and
further, that this Argument should present its conclusion, not as a
proposition of metaphysical theology, but in a form directly applicable to
the conduct of life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth.
(EP2:435)

GF: The recent book by Richard Kenneth Atkins on Peirce and the Conduct of
Life includes quotes from the exchange of letters between Peirce and William
James as Peirce was preparing his Cambridge Lectures of 1898. In these
letters Peirce asserts his allegiance to what he calls "conservative
sentimentalism" or "sentimental conservatism." The basic idea is that in the
conduct of everyday social life, when it comes to making crucial decisions,
we ought to trust our instinctive or "gut feelings" (as we would say today)
rather than our capacity for reasoning or our philosophical theories. This
does not, of course, apply to the conduct of scientific or philosophical
inquiry. But both Musement and Phaneroscopy are essentially pre-scientific,
and I think the 1908 NA is quite compatible with what Peirce called
"sentimental conservatism" in 1898. In R 645
  (1909) he was still
self-identifying as a "conservative" and "an old-fashioned Christian." It
all goes back to his gut feelings.

My own gut feelings are different. For one thing, I don't really feel that
the Creator is benign. But I recognize that Peirce's statement about
religious belief and the conduct of life in the NA is expressed as a
conditional: "If God Really be, and be benign, then ." - the value of this
belief for the conduct of life is conditional on its being a gut feeling of
the believer. And in that sense I agree with it.

Gary f.

 

} There's nothing more ruthless than life itself, and there's no other
source of compassion. [gnox] {

https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On
Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 16-Sep-21 00:31
To: Peirce-L ; Jon Alan Schmidt

Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)

 

Jon AS,List,

 

JAS:  Why would anyone not take [Peirce's] own word for it?

 

I admit that Peirce's NA writings are consistent with a
traditional Christian interpretation.  His family was Unitarian, but
his triadic philosophy led him to prefer a trinitarian God.  And that
led him to join the Episcopal Church.

 

Although he took Communion in the Episcopal Church, he also wrote that
his beliefs were "unconventional".  But he didn't elaborate, perhaps
because he didn't want to scandalize other parishioners.

 

I also admit that Peirce's NA makes a good case for a belief that is

consistent with many religions  and with the beliefs of many scientists

who claim that they are atheists or agnostics.  But the claims for a proof

of the existence of a personal God are less convincing.

  

>From the gospel of John, which he preferred, the first few verses from

"In the beginning was the Logos"  to "And the Logos was made flesh and

dwelt among us."  are consistent with everything he wrote.

 

The Logos, by itself, is consistent with what most scientists believe,

whether deists, theists, atheists, or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theism (was Inquiry Into Inquiry)