John,
I have no idea what you might mean by “firsts and seconds in biology”, or how dicent signs could “precede” them. Perhaps Frederik does, since you attribute that opinion to him … But maybe this will be clarified by your concluding post on Chapter 6 of NP. (We’ll wait for that before we start Chapter 7.) The Peirce list hasn’t seen this offlist exchange (below) between John and me, but since he’s sent it to the biosemiotics list, I figured the Peirce list might as have access to it also. gary f. From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 2-Dec-14 2:13 PM To: 'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee' Subject: [biosemiotics:7652] RE: phaneroscopy Phenomenology makes the same move with so-called bracketing, the phenomenological reduction. In any case there were precursors (who are of historical interest). Ideas and methods seldom emerge in a vacuum. My main problem is that I agree with Frederik that dicents precede firsts and seconds in biology, and that I also think that it permeates everything biological including our experience. So phenomenology seems to me to be a very bad place to begin examining experience. John From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: November 30, 2014 1:17 AM To: John Collier Subject: RE: phaneroscopy I figured that’s what you meant; my point being that Peirce didn’t adopt the term “phaneroscopy” in 1904 just to be difficult, he was deliberately marking a difference between phenomenology and what he was doing — and of course he was strongly opposed to “introspectionism” from very early on, so phaneroscopy is even more strongly contrasted with that. Psychophysics is of course a branch of psychology, and phaneroscopy has nothing to do with that. Of course Peirce wasn’t working in a vacuum, on the contrary he was well aware of those other disciplines and explicitly turned away from them. He was NOT aware of the Husserlian tradition which is now known as “phenomenology”, as his acquaintance with (early) Husserl was evidently slight and he had no way of knowing what “phenomenology” would become. For one thing, phaneroscopy is observational but eschews truth claims, which in itself sets it apart from “phenomenology”. That makes it hard to see how phaneroscopy can be described as scientifically either “reliable” or “unreliable” — let alone “notoriously” so! gary From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 29-Nov-14 4:44 PM To: Gary Fuhrman Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7591] Re: Natural Propositions 6 I was thinking of phenomenology in general, Gary. There was also a history of “introspectionism” that has a similar justification, whose failures led to behaviourism. Peirce wasn’t working in an intellectual vacuum, though his neologisms sometimes make it difficult to be sure how his ideas fit into the history of ideas. Psychophysics (which Peirce did some experiments in, on the distinguishability of touch sensations) is one important exception, and of course it has a long and generally noble history. John From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: November 29, 2014 7:28 PM To: John Collier Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7591] Re: Natural Propositions 6 Hmmm. I don’t know how a discipline that very few scientists have ever heard of, let alone tried to practice, could be “notorious” for unreliability (or for anything!). J gary From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] Sent: 29-Nov-14 11:58 AM To: Gary Fuhrman Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7591] Re: Natural Propositions 6 Saying I have no use for it would go a bit too far, but I think it has been notoriously unreliable scientifically. John From: Gary Fuhrman [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: November 29, 2014 4:20 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: Peirce List Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7591] Re: Natural Propositions 6 Stan, to answer your question: Peirce’s “firstness” is one of three elements of the phaneron, i.e. an element of experience. John’s “firstness” is certainly not that, and as far as I can tell does not relate to Peirce’s phaneron at all. I don’t think John has any use for phaneroscopy. gary f.
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
