RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Helmut, that’s a good question, but I don’t much care for any of your answers. Here’s mine: In CP 1.286-7 (which has been quoted before in this thread), Peirce speaks of phaneroscopy as a science which, being public like any other science, depends on multiple observations. He therefore refers to a plurality of phaneroscopists, each of whom has to make his or her own direct observations of the phaneron. Thus we must refer to a plurality of “phanerons” when we consider what they are doing. We might say that each of these phanerons is a token of the generic phaneron, and each observer a token of the mind that the phaneron is present to. Here is the quotation again: [[ There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as phanerons; and since I shall have no need of referring to any but those which (or the like of which) are perfectly familiar to everybody, every reader can control the accuracy of what I am going to say about them. Indeed, he must actually repeat my observations and experiments for himself, or else I shall more utterly fail to convey my meaning than if I were to discourse of effects of chromatic decoration to a man congenitally blind. What I term phaneroscopy is that study which, supported by the direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed together that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their characters are quite disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a certain very short list comprises all of these broadest categories of phanerons there are; and finally proceeds to the laborious and difficult task of enumerating the principal subdivisions of those categories. ]] The reason that Peirce usually insists on the oneness of the phaneron (or phenomenon) is explained (in his typical convoluted fashion) in EP2:472, 1913: [[ … what I am aware of, or, to use a different expression for the same fact, what I am conscious of, or, as the psychologists strangely talk, the ‘contents of my consciousness’ (just as if what I am conscious of and the fact that I am conscious were two different facts, and as if the one were inside the other), this same fact, I say, however it be worded, is evidently the entire universe, so far as I am concerned.]] If that doesn’t help, there’s a much longer explanation in Turning Signs 5: Inside Out (gnusystems.ca) <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/nsd.htm> . Gary f From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien Sent: 19-Jun-21 07:32 To: a.bree...@upcmail.nl Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 List Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from the Commens Dictionary: " 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284 Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron; and by the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron. " Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible explanations: 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons. 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable. I like number 1 better. Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" helps to not miss something. Did I get everything ok? Best Helmut _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE
RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
John, everything you say here was taken for granted in my post (and is one of the central ideas in my book): that most communication has to rely on trusting ones dialogue partner to be speaking from experience. Aukes question was about the word veracity in comparison with honesty and other terms for specific aspects of truthfulness. So that was the question I answered. Your last sentence, though, shows that youre confusing phaneroscopy with psychology. Phaneroscopy is a cenoscopic science and does not need any special equipment to make its observations. Peirce contrasts it with psychology in a 1909 letter to William James: [[ I mean to begin by drawing a distinction between what I call Psychology Proper, meaning an account of how the mind functions, developes, and decays, together with the explanation of all this by motions and changes of the brain, or, in default of this kind of explanation, by generalizations of psychical phenomena, so as to account for all the workings of the soul in the sense of reducing them to combinations of a few typical workings, in short a sort of physiology of the mind, on the one hand, and what I call Phaneroscopy on the other, or a description of what is before the mind or in consciousness, as it appears, in the different kinds of consciousness, which I rank under three headings . First, Qualisense, which means that element of Feeling which consists in consciousness of the Quality of the Feeling, but omitting the element of Vividness, which does not alter the Quality (thus a faint memory of a highly luminous, and chromatic vermillion does not appear less luminous or less high colored, for all its dimness) and omitting all other concomitants of present feeling that are absent from a correct recollection of the same Quality. (CP 8.300) ]] I include the last part of that to throw some specifically phaneroscopic light on qualia. This term, introduced by Peirce, has been widely used in cognitive science, but usually without a Peircean understanding of it; hence what David Chalmers called the hard problem of consciousness. Marc Champagne has shown in his recent book Consciousness and the Philosophy of Signs how such philosophical problems could be untangled by paying more attention to Peirces semiotic analysis especially the concept of the qualisign and its basis in phaneroscopy. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of John F. Sowa Sent: 18-Jun-21 23:36 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4 Gary F> For me at least, veracity only applies to stories or propositions that are publicly verifiable. But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other sources. When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw. Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing. For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans. Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the science of phaneroscopy. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Helmut, I take this 1905 quote to mean that although the contents of the pheneron do not always entertain a representative relation with an object (real thing, sic), we must accept the reality of the pheneron. In other words the reality of the phaneron does not depend on its representative relation. With regard to your: Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. -- Indeed, each of the theoretical sciences concentrate on an aspect of semeiosis. Pheneroscopy on aspects that (with conciderable effort because of our habits of interpretation) can be adressed without invoking the questions of representation, truth, etc. And so, again, being concerned with questions obout objects like the phaneron that function pre-truth, does not mean they are unreal. That position comes down to mixing upo the object of the phaneron with the object of phaneroscopy. best, Auke > Op 19 juni 2021 om 13:32 schreef Helmut Raulien : > > List > > Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from > the Commens Dictionary: > " > 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284 > > Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron; and by the phaneron I > mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present > to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or > not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these > questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of > the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all > minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is > occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron. > > " > > Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of > multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible > explanations: > > 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a > merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other > possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons. > > 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due > to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable. > > I like number 1 better. > > Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it > corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that > it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be > semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific > method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct > science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, > phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" > helps to not miss something. > > Did I get everything ok? > > Best > > Helmut > > > > >19. Juni 2021 um 11:33 Uhr >"Auke van Breemen" > wrote: > > > > John, > > Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : > Three laws of Qualia. > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness > > > Auke > > > > Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" > : > > > > > > Gary F> For me at least, �veracity� only applies to stories or > > propositions that are publicly verifiable. > > > > But a huge amount of information that we get every day is > > reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other > > sources. When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they > > rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what > > they did or saw. > > > > Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or > > truthful than others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually > > truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or > > embarrassing. > > > > For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are > > the only sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those > > reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive > > from brain scans. > > > > Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing > > the science of phaneroscopy. > > > > John > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to > > REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > > l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
List Here again the maybe most frequently used quote about "phaneron", from the Commens Dictionary: " 1905 | Adirondack Summer School Lectures | CP 1.284 Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron; and by the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds. So far as I have developed this science of phaneroscopy, it is occupied with the formal elements of the phaneron. " Due to this quote I was wondering, why Peirce in other places speaks of multiple "phanerons", or of "a phaneron". To me there are two possible explanations: 1. "Never having entertained a doubt" is two weak negations, that make a merely weak definition, i.e. a possibility. So he did not exclude the other possibility, that there may be distinct phanerons. 2. The phaneron is spatially total, but temporally separable, though, due to the continuity-claim, blurredly separable. I like number 1 better. Another question by me is, that "quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not" does not exclude the possibility, that it does correspond to a real thing, i.e. include a dynamic object, i.e. be semiotic. Claiming regardlessness to me sounds rather like a scientific method to better focus on the phaneron alone, than like a completely distinct science. But I dont know the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess, phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard" helps to not miss something. Did I get everything ok? Best Helmut 19. Juni 2021 um 11:33 Uhr "Auke van Breemen" wrote: John, Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : Three laws of Qualia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness Auke Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" : Gary F> For me at least, �veracity� only applies to stories or propositions that are publicly verifiable. But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other sources. When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw. Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing. For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans. Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the science of phaneroscopy. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
John, Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : Three laws of Qualia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness Auke > Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F. Sowa" : > > > Gary F> For me at least, veracity only applies to stories or > propositions that are publicly verifiable. > > But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by > people whose observations cannot be verified by any other sources. When > your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have > photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw. > > Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than > others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may > hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing. > > For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only > sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those reports to be > extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans. > > Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the > science of phaneroscopy. > > John > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
Gary F> For me at least, veracity only applies to stories or propositions that are publicly verifiable. But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other sources. When your friends or family discuss their experiences, they rarely have photographic evidence or other confirming sources about what they did or saw. Over time, we learn that some people are more reliable or truthful than others. We also learn that people whose reports are usually truthful may hide or distort some issues that may be painful or embarrassing. For dreams and feelings, the subject's introspective reports are the only sources for the details. But neuroscientists have found those reports to be extremely valuable for interpreting the data they receive from brain scans. Modern technology can provide important resources for enhancing the science of phaneroscopy. John Gary F> For me at least, veracity only applies to stories or propositions that are publicly verifiable. But a huge amount of information that we get every day is reported by people whose observations cannot be verified by any other sources._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
