Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry C., List:

JLRC:  the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint. ...
Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the
usual sense of meaning. ... So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly
referring" to phanerscopy is speaking for CSP ex cathedra.


Here again is the text in question.

CSP: But preliminary to normative science, which is essentially
*classificatory*,--stop to take that well in, I beg you, gentle
reader,--there should be a *nomological *science, which shall make out all
the different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is
conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how they can
be varied and combined. This science I hesitate to call phenomenology after
Hegel, for fear of marring his peculiar conception of it; and therefore,
though I think it is essentially the same thing under a somewhat different
aspect, I will name [it] *phaneroscopy*. It is the science of the different
elementary constituents of all ideas. Its material is, of course, universal
experience,--experience I mean of the fanciful and the abstract, as well as
of the concrete and real. Yet to suppose that in such experience the
elements were to be found already separate would be to suppose the
unimaginable and selfcontradictory. They must be separated by a process of
thought that cannot be summoned up Hegel-wise on demand. They must be
picked out of the fragments that necessary reasonings scatter; and
therefore it is that phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of
mathematics. (R 602:12-13, SWS 243-244, 1906 per Bellucci 2020)


In this paragraph, Peirce is specifically defining/describing "a
*nomological *science" that, in accordance with the *logical *basis of his
entire classification, should be "preliminary to normative science."
Although it is very similar to Hegel's "phenomenology," Peirce prefers to
give it the new name "phaneroscopy" because it studies the totality of
whatever is or could be present to the mind in any way, which he elsewhere
dubs "the phaneron." He also explains in other writings that "the different
indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is conceivably
possible"--i.e., "the different elementary constituents of all ideas"--are
1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.

Peirce adds that these are not "found already separate," but "must be
separated by a process of thought," namely, prescission of 2ns from 3ns and
of 1ns from both 3ns and 2ns. He describes this as "pick[ing them] out of
the fragments that necessary reasonings scatter," giving this as the reason
why "phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of mathematics." He
thus emphasizes not only the dependence of phaneroscopy on mathematics, but
also the distinction of phaneroscopy from mathematics--the necessary
reasonings of mathematics produce scattered fragments, from which
phaneroscopy must pick out the three universal/formal categories.

JLRC: One can image anything one wishes, but it seems relatively clear what
the nature of realism is. ... could you search for some significant
SCIENTIFIC arguments that address the structures of realism and addresses
the foundational issues essential to a nomological science or realism?


Realism is not germane to phaneroscopy because this science is only
concerned with what *seems*, encompassing not just "the concrete and real"
but also "the fanciful and the abstract." Within Peirce's classification,
distinguishing the real from the fictional is instead a task for
metaphysics, employing principles of the normative science of logic as
semeiotic.

JLRC: CSP held that chemistry was the ”bedrock” of his logical system


As John Sowa has previously requested, "For any claims about what Peirce
believed, please give exact quotations." Are there any texts where he
*explicitly
states* that chemistry is the "bedrock" of his logical system? If not, what
is the basis for claiming that this was *his own *position?

Regards,

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

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:02 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> Jon:
>
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> Jerry C., List:
>
> In context, Peirce is plainly referring to phaneroscopy, so "the different
> indecomposable elements" are simply 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.
>
> Jon:  the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint.   One can
> image anything one wishes, but it seems relatively clear what the nature of
> realism is.
>
> Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the
> usual sense of meaning.
>
>  The vagueness of the concepts 1 ns, 2ns and 3 ns in no way restrict the
> meaning of sentence.
>
> Certainly, the terminology of the trichotomy can be read in terms of 1ns,
> 2ns, and 3ns.
>
> So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly referring" to phanerscopy is
> speaking

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Jon:



> On Oct 25, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> Jerry C., List:
> 
> In context, Peirce is plainly referring to phaneroscopy, so "the different 
> indecomposable elements" are simply 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.

Jon:  the text in no way addresses such as enormous constraint.   One can image 
anything one wishes, but it seems relatively clear what the nature of realism 
is.

Furthermore, phanerscopy is merely a term that is not a science in the usual 
sense of meaning.

 The vagueness of the concepts 1 ns, 2ns and 3 ns in no way restrict the 
meaning of sentence.  

Certainly, the terminology of the trichotomy can be read in terms of 1ns, 2ns, 
and 3ns.

So, the suggestion that Peirce is "plainly referring" to phanerscopy is 
speaking for CSP ex cathedra.



> 
> JLRC: Does the "enter into everything" quote refer to the Table of Elements?
> 
> No, that is studied within the special science of chemistry, not 
> phaneroscopy. The quote refers to whatever is or could be present to the mind 
> in any way.

The meanings of the attributes of matter and the coherence of natural sciences 
and natural philosophy of the concept of elements are not restricted.
Since CSP held that chemistry was the ” bedrock” of his logical system, any 
wholistic notion would necessary relate to chemical abstractions. 

> 
> JLRC: It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological 
> science that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs?
> 
> No, those are studied within the normative science of logic as semeiotic, not 
> phaneroscopy. The "should" here is logical, not ethical.

Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the grammar of “should”.  

In short, I find these comments disappointingly shallow, given the GRAVITY of 
the assertion of the sentence.

John:  could you search for some significant SCIENTIFIC arguments that address 
the structures of realism and addresses the foundational issues essential to a 
nomological science or realism?

Cheers

Jerry   


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM Jerry LR Chandler 
> mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote:
> List:
>> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:14 AM, robert marty > > wrote:
>> (Cited as from MS0602_012)
>> ...there should be a nomological science , which shall make out all the 
>> different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is 
>> conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how can be 
>> varied and combined.
> 
> This sentence has little or any meaning to the iconic, indexical or symbolic 
> forms of mathematics or physics, but fits the compositions of logical 
> elements into unbounded numbers of unique compounds (such as the careful 
> discrimination needed to identify handedness (optical isomers)!)  Does the 
> "enter into everything" quote refer to the Table of Elements?  How dark a 
> shadow does this citation cast on the role of mathematics in phaneroscopy? 
> 
> It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological science 
> that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs?
> 
> It is possible that such a nomological science would be interdependent with 
> the numerical calculations that relate the propositions of rhema, dici-signs 
> and arguments such that coherent truths are generated from the 
> correspondences between quali-signs, iconic forms, numerical indices?
> 
> These two possible assertions are consistence with the coherence of the 
> sin-signs of natural sorts and kinds in both the 2 nd half of the 19 th 
> Century and in the third decade of the 21 th Century.
> 
> Robert, the question to you is, if you remained interested in exploring 
> Peircian mathematics is: what is the quantitation of your models of lattices 
> such that a nomological sciences of numbers corresponds with natural sorts 
> and kinds?
> 
> In other words, how is it possible to compose the factors of a polynomial 
> index of elements into an exact symbolic legi-sign?
> 
> After all, this is the central thesis of the trichotomy - with both 
> hypo-theses and hyper-theses . 
> 
> As I have previously asserted, I believe that the polynomial index of logical 
> factors as well as a symbolic obligatory logic is essential to such a 
> nomological science, such as the perplex numbers in relation to the 
> compositions of organic mathematical symbols.
> 
> I will close by expressing a revealing but abstractly-encoded tease. Beware 
> of Skolemization! 
> 
> Cheers
> Jerry
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a mes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:14 AM, robert marty  wrote:
> (Cited as from MS0602_012)
> ...there should be a nomological science , which shall make out all the 
> different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is 
> conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how can be 
> varied and combined.

This sentence has little or any meaning to the iconic, indexical or symbolic 
forms of mathematics or physics, but fits the compositions of logical elements 
into unbounded numbers of unique compounds (such as the careful discrimination 
needed to identify handedness (optical isomers)!)  Does the "enter into 
everything" quote refer to the Table of Elements?  How dark a shadow does this 
citation cast on the role of mathematics in phaneroscopy? 

It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological science 
that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs?

It is possible that such a nomological science would be interdependent with the 
numerical calculations that relate the propositions of rhema, dici-signs and 
arguments such that coherent truths are generated from the correspondences 
between quali-signs, iconic forms, numerical indices?

These two possible assertions are consistence with the coherence of the 
sin-signs of natural sorts and kinds in both the 2 nd half of the 19 th Century 
and in the third decade of the 21 th Century.

Robert, the question to you is, if you remained interested in exploring 
Peircian mathematics is: what is the quantitation of your models of lattices 
such that a nomological sciences of numbers corresponds with natural sorts and 
kinds?

In other words, how is it possible to compose the factors of a polynomial index 
of elements into an exact symbolic legi-sign?

After all, this is the central thesis of the trichotomy - with both hypo-theses 
and hyper-theses . 

As I have previously asserted, I believe that the polynomial index of logical 
factors as well as a symbolic obligatory logic is essential to such a 
nomological science, such as the perplex numbers in relation to the 
compositions of organic mathematical symbols.

I will close by expressing a revealing but abstractly-encoded tease. Beware of 
Skolemization! 

Cheers
Jerry_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry C., List:

In context, Peirce is plainly referring to phaneroscopy, so "the different
indecomposable elements" are simply 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns.

JLRC: Does the "enter into everything" quote refer to the Table of Elements?


No, that is studied within the special science of chemistry, not
phaneroscopy. The quote refers to whatever is or could be present to the
mind in any way.

JLRC: It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological
science that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs?


No, those are studied within the normative science of logic as semeiotic,
not phaneroscopy. The "should" here is logical, not ethical.

Regards,

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

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> List:
>
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:14 AM, robert marty 
> wrote:
> (Cited as from MS0602_012)
>
> ...there should be a *nomological* science , which shall make out all the
> different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is
> conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how can be
> varied and combined.
>
> This sentence has little or any meaning to the iconic, indexical or
> symbolic forms of mathematics or physics, but fits the compositions of
> logical elements into unbounded numbers of unique compounds (such as the
> careful discrimination needed to identify handedness (optical isomers)!)
>  Does the "enter into everything" quote refer to the Table of Elements?
> How dark a shadow does this citation cast on the role of mathematics in
> phaneroscopy?
>
> It is possible that the (ethical?) “should” refers to a nomological
> science that relates to the relations between sin-signs and legi-signs?
>
> It is possible that such a nomological science would be interdependent
> with the numerical calculations that relate the propositions of rhema,
> dici-signs and arguments such that coherent truths are generated from the
> correspondences between quali-signs, iconic forms, numerical indices?
>
> *These two possible assertions are consistence with the coherence of the
> sin-signs of natural sorts and kinds* in both the 2 nd half of the 19 th
> Century and in the third decade of the 21 th Century.
>
> Robert, the question to you is, if you remained interested in exploring
> Peircian mathematics is: what is the quantitation of your models of
> lattices such that a nomological sciences of numbers corresponds with
> natural sorts and kinds?
>
> In other words, how is it possible to compose the factors of a polynomial
> index of elements into an exact symbolic legi-sign?
>
> After all, this is the central thesis of the trichotomy - with both
> hypo-theses and hyper-theses .
>
> As I have previously asserted, I believe that the polynomial index of
> logical factors as well as a symbolic obligatory logic is essential to such
> a nomological science, such as the perplex numbers in relation to the
> compositions of organic mathematical symbols.
>
> I will close by expressing a revealing but abstractly-encoded tease. *Beware
> of Skolemization*!
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[gnox]

We should mention that John Sowa quoted part of R 602 back on August 16 (Re: 
[PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 25 (mail-archive.com) 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l@list.iupui.edu/msg15939.html> ), 
claiming that it contradicted “ADT’s slide 25”. There was some follow-up 
discussion (which I think did not bear out that claim). But it’s good to have a 
more complete transcription, which shows that the whole manuscript is an 
explanation of why phaneroscopy has to precede the normative sciences in the 
classification. By the way there is a PDF of the manuscript at 
https://www.unav.es/gep/MS602.pdf. 

 

Gary F.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 25-Oct-21 13:51
To: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of 
normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

 

Robert, List:

 

Indeed, Peirce likely wrote R 602 no earlier than 1904 since it uses his new 
name "phaneroscopy" for the distinct science in question, mainly to distinguish 
it from Hegel's "phenomenology." Its contents appear to be fully consistent 
with his mature classification, including the dependence of phaneroscopy on 
mathematics for principles.

 

Moreover, just as "phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of 
mathematics," likewise "in order successfully to prosecute the study of logic, 
we ought to prepare the ground by a preliminary study of ethics in general" (R 
602:8-9). Again, this is a major revision of the early classifications in R 
1345, which situate ethics as the first branch of pragmatics--below not only 
logic, but also metaphysics and all the special sciences as the branches of 
empirics.

 

Regards,




Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>  
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> 

 

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM robert marty mailto:robert.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Jon Alan, List

 

Jon Alan, perhaps this classification - which I extract from MS 602 - will 
leave you less perplexed. First, because of its date (1902-1908 according to 
Robin, 16 p.), and second, because of the extreme accuracy and clarity of its 
exposition. I have not finished examining all of them, but for the moment, this 
one is the best I have come across. But I have no doubt that your extreme rigor 
of thought will find at least one asperity to catch some powerful criticism, 
because that is how science works  I add as an attachment my transcription 
of the whole MS.

 


  ...beginning of the quote 
.

MS0602_012

[M 12] [ ...] But preliminary to normative sciences, which is essentially 
classificatory, -stop to take that well in, I beg you, gentle reader, there 
should be a nomological science , which shall make out all the different 
indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is conceivably 
possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how can be varied and 
combined. This science I hesitate to call phenomenology  after Hegel, for fear 
of marring his peculiar conception of it; and therefore , though  I think it is 
essentially the same thing under a somewhat different aspect, I will name 
Phaneroscopy. It is the science of the different elementary constituents of all 
ideas. Its material

MS0602_013

[M 13] is, of course, universal experience, -experience I mean of the fanciful 
and the abstract, as well as of the concrete and real. Yet to suppose that in 
such experience the elements were to be found already separate would be to 
suppose unimaginable and selfcontradictory. They must be separated by a process 
of thought that cannot be summoned up Hegel-wise on demand. They must be picked 
out of the fragments that necessary reasonings scatter; and therefore it is 
that phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of mathematics. 
[emphasize mine]

With this remark our ladder of the sciences is completed and may be exhibited 
in tabula form as follows:

MS0602_014

[M 14]   HEURETIC SCIENCE

MATHEMATICS

  CENOSCOPY

   Phaneroscopy

   Normative Science 

Esthetics

Ethics 

Logic

  Metaphysics

   IDIOSCOPY

  PhysiognosyPsychognosy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

Indeed, Peirce likely wrote R 602 no earlier than 1904 since it uses his
new name "phaneroscopy" for the distinct science in question, mainly to
distinguish it from Hegel's "phenomenology." Its contents appear to be
fully consistent with his mature classification, including the dependence
of phaneroscopy on mathematics for principles.

Moreover, just as "phaneroscopic research requires a previous study of
mathematics," likewise "in order successfully to prosecute the study of
logic, we ought to prepare the ground by a preliminary study of ethics in
general" (R 602:8-9). Again, this is a major revision of the early
classifications in R 1345, which situate ethics as the first branch of
pragmatics--below not only logic, but also metaphysics and all the special
sciences as the branches of empirics.

Regards,

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

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> Jon Alan, List
>
> Jon Alan, perhaps this classification - which I extract from MS 602 - will
> leave you less perplexed. First, because of its date (1902-1908 according
> to Robin, 16 p.), and second, because of the extreme accuracy and clarity
> of its exposition. I have not finished examining all of them, but for the
> moment, this one is the best I have come across. But I have no doubt that
> your extreme rigor of thought will find at least one asperity to catch some
> powerful criticism, because that is how science works  I add as an
> attachment my transcription of the whole MS.
>
> 
> ...beginning of the quote
> .
>
> MS0602_012
>
> [M 12] [ ...] But preliminary to normative sciences, which is essentially
> *classificatory,* -stop to take that well in, I beg you, gentle reader,
> there should be a *nomological* science , which shall make out all the
> different indecomposable elements which enter into everything that is
> conceivably possible, discriminates them with care, and shows how can be
> varied and combined. This science I hesitate to call phenomenology  after
> Hegel, for fear of marring his peculiar conception of it; and therefore ,
> though  I think it is essentially the same thing under a somewhat
> different aspect, I will name *Phaneroscopy*. It is the science of the
> different elementary constituents of all ideas. Its material
>
> MS0602_013
>
> [M 13] is, of course, universal experience, -experience I mean of the
> fanciful and the abstract, as well as of the concrete and real. Yet to
> suppose that in such experience the elements were to be found already
> separate would be to suppose unimaginable and selfcontradictory. They must
> be separated by a process of thought that cannot be summoned up Hegel-wise
> on demand. They must be picked out of the fragments that necessary
> reasonings scatter;* and therefore it is that phaneroscopic research
> requires a previous study of mathematics*. [emphasize mine]
>
> With this remark our ladder of the sciences is completed and may be
> exhibited in tabula form as follows:
>
> MS0602_014
>
> [M 14]   *HEURETIC SCIENCE*
>
> *MATHEMATICS*
>
> *  CENOSCOPY*
>
> *   Phaneroscopy*
>
> *   Normative Science *
>
> *Esthetics*
>
> *Ethics *
>
> *Logic*
>
> *  Metaphysics*
>
> *   IDIOSCOPY*
>
>   Physiognosy
> Psychognosy
>
>   Nomology   Nomology
>
> MS0602_015
>
> [M 15]  Dynamics
>   General Psychology
>
>  Molar Physics
>Gravitation
>
>  Molecular Physics
>Elaterics; Crystallography
>
> Etherial Physics
>Optics
>Electrics
>
> Classificatory Science
>  Classificatory Science
>
>Chemistry
>  Special
> Psychology
>
> Biology
> Linguistics
>   Physiology
>   Anatomy
>   Ethnology
>
>
> Explanatory Descripti

[PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopic Analysis (was A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting texts)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, Edwina, List:

I continue to be puzzled by the special authority that is seemingly being
given to quotations from R 1345 (c. 1896), as if it were Peirce's
definitive text on any subject that it addresses, overriding anything that
he wrote before it or after it. Is there a good reason for treating it this
way?

In any case, here it reflects a peculiar usage of "representamen" that
applies to all three correlates of "the triad," the name of which is
"representation" (not "sign"). What Peirce would later call "phanerons" or
"prebits" are divided categorially into *quales *(1ns); *reagents *(2ns),
which can either act as agents or be acted upon as patients; and
*representamens
*(3ns), which can serve as either "vehicles of meaning," "natural objects,"
or interpretants. Reagents can always be prescinded from representamens,
and quales can always be prescinded from reagents and from representamens.

Hence, although Peirce omits any distinct science of phenomenology or
phaneroscopy from the preliminary classifications that he presents in this
particular manuscript, he is clearly employing what he would eventually
identify as phenomenological or phaneroscopic analysis.

Regards,

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

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 12:40 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Robert, list
>
> That's an excellent outline of the triad and the definition of the
> Representamen. and of the Intentional Interpretant and the need for the
> Commens. And by the way, this section from Peirce includes a definition of
> the Dynamic Object, which is, exactly as I've said before, not an external
> object on its own, but is "the dynamical object does not mean something out
> of the mind. It means something forced upon the mind in perception, but
> including more than perception reveals. It is an object of actual
> Experience' EP2:478
>
> Exactly as I've previously outlined. I won't comment on the other issues
> because I think I've made my views quite clear many times before - and they
> are not in line with those of Gary R, JAS or Gary F - and this thread
> hasn't been set up as a discussion but as a debate.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Sun 24/10/21 6:40 AM , robert marty robert.mart...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Gary R, List,
> I refer to the definition of the representamen (the number 76 of
> https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/rsources/76DEFS/76defs.HTM)  resituated in
> its original broader context on page 34 of MS 1345:
>
>
>   MS1345_034
>
> ",entation [1] <#m_578724956437646480__ftn1> ; and an object which forms
> one of such a triad and has for his characteristics is called a
> Representamen.
>
> Art.8 Division 7. A Quale can, as such, be considered from only one point
> of view.
>
>   A Reagent can be considered from two formal points of view,
> namely, as affected by the reaction, and so as Patient, and as affecting
> the complementary factor, and so as Agent.
>
>  'A Representamen can be considered from three formal points of
> view, namely, first as the substance of the representation, or the Vehicle
> of the Meaning, which is common to the three representamens of the
> triad,  second as the quasi agent in the representation, conformity to
> which its Truth, that is, as the Natural Object, and third, as the
> quasi-patient in the representation, or that whether modification makes it
> Intelligence, and this may be called the Interpretant. Thus, in looking
> at a map, the map itself is the Vehicle, the country represented in the 
> Natural
> Object, and the idea excited in the mind is the Interpretant.' (partie 
> reproduite
> en def 76)
>
> Furthermore, every representamen may be considered as a reagent, its
> intellectual characteristic neglected; and both representamen and reagent
> may be considered as quales, their relative character being neglected. This
> we do, for example, when we say that the word man has three letters."
>
> From this definition, it follows that the "intentional interpretant"
> ("here is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the
> mind of the utterer", EP2 478 ) not being observable, cannot be a Natural
> Object. It can only give place to endless inquiries, except perhaps that
> science evolving, it allows to read in the brain of the utterer objective
> characters of the determination of this mind.
>
>  Indeed,
>
> "The point to remember is, that whatever we say of ideas as they are in
> consciousness is said of something unknowable in its immediacy. The only
> thought that is really present to us is a thought we can neither think
> about nor talk about. "Of thine eye I am eyebeam," says the Sphinx. We have
> no reason to deny the dicta of introspection, but we have to remember that
> they are all results of association, are all theoretical, bits of
> instinctive psychology. We accept them, but not as literally true; only as
>