Helmut, John, Robert, list, Yes, Helmut, there is a metaphysical aspect to Peirce’s 1867 “New List” essay; there is even a psychological aspect, even though Peirce insisted that logic has nothing to learn from psychology. But for Peirce, even at this early date, metaphysics is dependent on logic, not the other way round. Many years later he asserted the dependence of logic on ethics, and the dependence of both on phenomenology. In 1867 he wasn’t even discriminating between logic and phenomenology. And it’s not clear in what sense (if any) metaphysics is “behind nature.” But we’ll get to metaphysics soon in the slow read. To the other questions in your post I have no ready answers.
John, I fail to see any “debate” between Robert and me about the relations between mathematics and the positive sciences (including semiotics). I think the Peirce quotes we both shared are pretty clear on that subject. If you think the internal divisions of mathematics are relevant to the relations between mathematics and phaneroscopy, you can explain that when we get to that question later on in the slow read, and we will see how consistent that theory is with Peirce’s explicit statements about the involvement of mathematics in phaneroscopy. Robert, I don’t see that your assertion about “the elimination of mathematics in the secondary literature on Peirce” is relevant to the subject of phaneroscopy, and so far you have avoided saying anything about its status as a positive science or its relationship to other positive sciences. So I think it’s time we proceeded to the next series of slides in the slow read, which provide definitions of the three phaneroscopic categories or “elements of the phaneron.” After that we’ll get to the classification of sciences and where phaneroscopy fits in that schema. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien Sent: 6-Jul-21 12:22 Gary F., List To me it had seemed, that in the "New List of Categories" the poles "Being" and "Substance", and the category-steps between them, would sound quite metaphysical (about what is behind nature). Is it a rational progress to at last combine human ratio with nature, or is it rather a fallacy to first having supposed a classifying, opposing distinction between both? Are humans not animals, or are they animals plus something else? Like "animals 2.0."? Is "artificial" the contradiction to "natural", or natural too? 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.
