Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
List: > On Aug 24, 2021, at 11:39 AM, > > On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not semeiotic. This sentence is a remarkable example of how emotional rhetorical thrusts generate the thoughts that make no sense in the language of CSP. Units of thoughts have units of meaning. These two concepts are inseparable. In the engineering sciences, especially the epistemology and ontology of pragmatic necessities, the connections between phaneroscopy and semiotics are essential to ethical actions. The graphic diagrams that illustrate the iconic forms of engineering work connect, necessarily, the semeiotic with the phaneroscopy. Indeed, the connections of symbols with the indices of the diagrams derived from semiotic and phaneroscopy could be a central thesis of engineering sciences. 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] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
the series of papers of which the one > you send me is the first, will prove to be that it shows so clearly that > phenomenology is one science and psychology a very different one. I know > that you are not inclined to see much value in distinguishing between one > science and another. But my opinion is that it is absolutely necessary to > any progress. The standards of certainty must be different in different > sciences, the principles to which one science appeals altogether different > from those of the other. From the point of view of logic and methodical > development the distinctions are of the greatest concern. Phenomenology has > no right to appeal to logic, except to deductive logic. On the contrary, > logic must be founded on phenomenology. Psychology, you may say, observes > the same facts as phenomenology does. No. It does not *observe* the same > facts. It looks upon the same world; — the same world that the astronomer > looks at. But what it *observes* in that world is different. Psychology > of all sciences stands most in need of the discoveries of the logician, > which he makes by the aid of the phenomenologist. > > I am not sure that it will do to call this science *phenomenology* owing > to Hegel's *Phänomenologie* being somewhat different. But I am not sure > that Hegel ought not to have it named after his attempt. … > > My “phenomenon” for which I must invent a new word is very near your “pure > experience” but not quite since I do not exclude time and also speak of > only *one* “phenomenon.” > > > > GF: The “new word” he invented was, of course, “phaneron.” To contrast it > with Peirce’s usage of “experience,” the first thing I’d say is that > “phaneron” refers to the collective total of whatever is or (can be) > *experienced*, rather than the *experience* itself (considered as > something that happens or occurs to a “subject of experience”). But Peirce > also says that the practice of phenomenology/ phaneroscopy itself does not > assume a distinction between *experience* and *what is experienced*, or > between “subjective” and “objective” experience — or, as he put it > elsewhere, between *consciousness *and the “*contents of consciousness.*” > > Anyway, we’ll have to sort this out in more detail later, with direct > quotations if necessary. We will no doubt continue to get alternative > interpretations posted by others, who are welcome to post them, but unless > they are based directly on something Peirce actually wrote about the > subject, I don’t see much point in arguing for or against them. > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu *On > Behalf Of *Jon Alan Schmidt > *Sent:* 24-Aug-21 13:00 > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31 > > > > Gary F., List: > > GF: Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the > key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it > “phaneroscopy”) is *experience*. > > Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of > *experience > *is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce, > experience is strictly *cognitive *(i.e., semiosic) and *involuntary*, > constraints that do not apply to the phaneron as a whole. > > > > CSP: But for philosophy, which is the science which sets in order those > observations which lie open to every man every day and hour, experience can > only mean the total cognitive result of living, and includes > interpretations quite as truly as it does the matter of sense. Even more > truly, since this matter of sense is a hypothetical something which we > never can seize as such, free from all interpretative working over. (CP > 7.538, 1899) > > > > CSP: What is experience? It is the resultant ideas that have > been forced upon us. We find we cannot summon up what images we like. Try > to banish an idea and it only comes home with greater violence later. > Hence, we find the only wisdom is to accept, at once, the ideas that sooner > or later we must accept; and we even go to work solicitous to find out what > are the ideas which are going ultimately to be forced upon us. Three such > ideas are the three categories; and it will be wise to pitch overboard > promptly the metaphysics which preaches against them.(CP 4.318, 1902) > > > > CSP: Experience of the unexpected forces upon us the idea of duality. Will > you say, "Yes, the idea is forced upon us, but it is not directly > experienced, because only what is within is directly experienced"? The > reply is that *experience *means nothing but just that of > a cognitive nature which the history of our lives has forced upon us. It is > *indirect*, if the medi
RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
Jon A.S., John S., list, Perhaps we are making some progress in this reading of ADT’s talk, if John is ready to admit that Peirce’s phenomenology is a separate science from mathematics, that it occupies a place in the hierarchy below mathematics but above all other sciences, and that its focus on experience makes it different from any other science. (I think you must be ready to admit this, John, since you took it as an insult when I said that you haven’t admitted it before!) GF (previously): Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience. JAS: Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of experience is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce, experience is strictly cognitive (i.e., semiosic) and involuntary, constraints that do not apply to the phaneron as a whole. GF: Yes, the time has come for examining the relation between experience and the phaneron. André mentions in slide 32 (already posted) that “the term phaneron was coined in late October 1904 after an exchange with William James.” To provide more context for this discussion, I’ll post here some excerpts from that “exchange,” quoting those parts of the letter to James (CP 8.286-301) where Peirce writes explicitly about phenomenology. CSP: … As I understand you, then, the proposition which you are arguing is a proposition in what I have called phenomenology, that is, just the analysis of what kind of constituents there are in our thoughts and lives, (whether these be valid or invalid being quite aside from the question). It is a branch of philosophy I am most deeply interested in and which I have worked upon almost as much as I have upon logic. It has nothing to do with psychology. … Perhaps the most important aspect of the series of papers of which the one you send me is the first, will prove to be that it shows so clearly that phenomenology is one science and psychology a very different one. I know that you are not inclined to see much value in distinguishing between one science and another. But my opinion is that it is absolutely necessary to any progress. The standards of certainty must be different in different sciences, the principles to which one science appeals altogether different from those of the other. From the point of view of logic and methodical development the distinctions are of the greatest concern. Phenomenology has no right to appeal to logic, except to deductive logic. On the contrary, logic must be founded on phenomenology. Psychology, you may say, observes the same facts as phenomenology does. No. It does not observe the same facts. It looks upon the same world; — the same world that the astronomer looks at. But what it observes in that world is different. Psychology of all sciences stands most in need of the discoveries of the logician, which he makes by the aid of the phenomenologist. I am not sure that it will do to call this science phenomenology owing to Hegel's Phänomenologie being somewhat different. But I am not sure that Hegel ought not to have it named after his attempt. … My “phenomenon” for which I must invent a new word is very near your “pure experience” but not quite since I do not exclude time and also speak of only one “phenomenon.” GF: The “new word” he invented was, of course, “phaneron.” To contrast it with Peirce’s usage of “experience,” the first thing I’d say is that “phaneron” refers to the collective total of whatever is or (can be) experienced, rather than the experience itself (considered as something that happens or occurs to a “subject of experience”). But Peirce also says that the practice of phenomenology/ phaneroscopy itself does not assume a distinction between experience and what is experienced, or between “subjective” and “objective” experience — or, as he put it elsewhere, between consciousness and the “contents of consciousness.” Anyway, we’ll have to sort this out in more detail later, with direct quotations if necessary. We will no doubt continue to get alternative interpretations posted by others, who are welcome to post them, but unless they are based directly on something Peirce actually wrote about the subject, I don’t see much point in arguing for or against them. Gary f. From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 24-Aug-21 13:00 To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31 Gary F., List: GF: Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience. Nevertheless, as André finally acknowledges, "this understanding of experience is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron." For Peirce, experience is strictly cognitive (i.e., semio
Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I don't conflate phenomenology with mathematics or with semiotics! I
gave a clear quotation about the difference between experience and
analysis:
--
Instead, my understanding is that, as Peirce writes, we must
discriminate "between an inductive and a hypothetic explanation of
the facts of human life. We have seen that every fact requires two
kinds of explanation; the one proceeds by induction to replace its
subject by a wider one, the other proceeds by hypothesis to replace
its predicate by a deeper one. We have seen that these two
explanations never coincide that both are indispensable….7.581
I interpret or misinterpret this to mean that Consciousness is the
action within the phaneroscopy and operates within the three modes as
outlined in 7.551 et al, which is that of primarily acknowledging the
'percepts', and associating or classifying them, and Mathematics
provides the hypothetical explanations, which makes them
'teleological or purposive.7.570.
-
The difference of opinion I am having with JAS has nothing to do
with the above differentiation between 'inductive and hypothetic
explanations'. Instead, it's a difference of opinion about the
nature of 'that which is experienced'. I am saying that 'that which
is experienced' functions within a triadic interaction of
O-R-I...where O is that phaneron, and R is 'me' as
He-Who-Experiences-Oand I would be II. So, an example would be a
Qualisign, or any of the SinSigns. I consider that these experiences
- that pure feeling found within the Qualisign, that brute reaction
found within a Sinsign - are experiences within the phaneron. And
triadic.
JAS seems to be saying that any and all triadic interactions include
3ns..and I disagree.
That's where it's at. An, as usual, great difference between JAS and
myself -
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 2:17 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, Jon, List,
ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
This is a clear example of what I've called the conflation and
attempted reduction of phenomenology to logic as semiotic. The
examples of signs which Edwina gives are found and developed in
semeiotic grammar (the first of the three branches of the
classificatory later science of logic as semeiotic) based on the
phaneroscopic findings of categoriality in phenomenology. This would
seem to put the cart before the horse.
But this has been argued to death; and it would appear that those
who would conflate phenomenology with mathematics and/or semeiotic
appear unable or unwilling to imagine a phaneroscopic science such as
that conceived of by Peirce. It appears that they would either reduce
phenomenology to a kind of mathematics or semeiotics or they would
attempt to eliminate it altogether.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then,
Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, I think a more accurate statement would be
In my opinion...the statements below exhibit confusion..etc etc.
In other words - this is YOUR opinion. It would be 'nice' if you
would acknowledge that YOU have an opinion, and oddly enough, other
people have different opinions!! Instead, you write as if YOUR
opinion is the ultimate truth!
I have a different analysis, and I disagree that 'all semiosis
"involves 3ns which is mediation as distinguished from reaction..et.
I consider that all sensate interaction is triadic - as I said; for
example - a Qualsign and the Sinsigns. And I disagree that all
genuine triadic relations are 'manifestations of 3ns'.
So, as I said - we'll simply have to disagree.
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 1:51 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
The statements below exhibit confusion of the categories themselves
as discovered in phaneroscopy with "categorical modes" as employed in
speculative grammar for sign classification. All semiosis involves
3ns, which is mediation as distinguished from reaction (2ns) and
quality (1ns). All genuine triadic relations, including any sign
(qualisign/sinsign/legisign) representing its object
(iconically/indexically/symbolically) for its interpretant (as a
rheme/dicisign/argument), are manifestations of 3ns. On the other
hand, all "sensate interaction" is dyadic, not triadic.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:34 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS
We'll just have to disagree.
I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is
triadic and is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same
with a Dicent Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and
is NOT cognitive. No Thirdness involved.
That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that
cognition [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction
between X and Y is triadic [O-R-I] .
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is
triadic.
Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the
mind as quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they
are decidedly not triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact.
Edwina
Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Re: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 31
Edwina, Jon, List, ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. This is a clear example of what I've called the conflation and attempted reduction of *phenomenology* to *logic as semiotic*. The examples of signs which Edwina gives are found and developed in *semeiotic grammar* (the first of the three branches of the classificatory later science of *logic as semeiotic*) *based on the phaneroscopic findings of categoriality in phenomenology*. This would seem to put the cart before the horse. But this has been argued to death; and it would appear that those who would conflate phenomenology with mathematics and/or semeiotic appear unable or unwilling to imagine a phaneroscopic science such as that conceived of by Peirce. It appears that they would either reduce phenomenology to a kind of mathematics or semeiotics or they would attempt to eliminate it altogether. Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > JAS, list > > If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic. > As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic > sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a > stimulus - then it is triadic. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the > experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic > Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. > > > On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not > semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the > mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality > (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> List >> >> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the >> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic >> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since all >> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided >> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique, >> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved. >> >> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that >> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction, >> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical >> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 >> >> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go >> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of >> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism, >> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but >> within that objective reality with which we interact. >> >> 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 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 31
Edwina, List: The statements below exhibit confusion of the categories themselves as discovered in phaneroscopy with "categorical modes" as employed in speculative grammar for sign classification. All semiosis involves 3ns, which is mediation as distinguished from reaction (2ns) and quality (1ns). All genuine triadic relations, including any sign (qualisign/sinsign/legisign) representing its object (iconically/indexically/symbolically) for its interpretant (as a rheme/dicisign/argument), are manifestations of 3ns. On the other hand, all "sensate interaction" is dyadic, not triadic. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:34 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > JAS > > We'll just have to disagree. > > I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is triadic and > is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same with a Dicent > Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and is NOT cognitive. No > Thirdness involved. > > That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that cognition > [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction between X and Y is > triadic [O-R-I] . > > Edwina > > On Tue 24/08/21 1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., > semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. > > > Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the mind as > quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they are decidedly not > triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> JAS, list >> >> If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic. >> As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic >> sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a >> stimulus - then it is triadic. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the >> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic >> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. >> >> >> On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not >> semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the >> mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality >> (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky >> wrote: >> >>> List >>> >>> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the >>> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic >>> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since all >>> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided >>> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique, >>> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved. >>> >>> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that >>> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction, >>> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical >>> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 >>> >>> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go >>> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of >>> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism, >>> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but >>> within that objective reality with which we interact. >>> >>> 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 slide 31
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
We'll just have to disagree.
I acknowledge the Qualisign - which is pure Firstness - and is
triadic and is NOT cognitive. There is no Thirdness involved. Same
with a Dicent Sinsign - which is pure Secondness and is triadic and
is NOT cognitive. No Thirdness involved.
That is - the semiosic triad of O-R-I does not always mean that
cognition [Thirdness] is involved. But, all sensate interaction
between X and Y is triadic [O-R-I] .
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 1:20 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is
triadic.
Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly present to the
mind as quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they
are decidedly not triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact.
Edwina
Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 31
Edwina, List: ET: If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic. ... If anything functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic. Not according to Peirce. 1ns and 2ns are certainly *present *to the mind as quality/feeling and reaction/effort, yet in themselves they are decidedly *not *triadic/semiosic; i.e., cognitive. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > JAS, list > > If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e., semiotic. > As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a rhematic > sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything functions as a > stimulus - then it is triadic. > > Edwina > > On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the > experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic > Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. > > > On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not > semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the > mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality > (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> List >> >> It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the >> experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic >> Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since all >> experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided >> by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique, >> non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved. >> >> But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that >> Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction, >> involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical >> phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 >> >> Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go >> from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of >> Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism, >> Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but >> within that objective reality with which we interact. >> >> 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 slide 31
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
If anything is present to the mind - then it is triadic, i.e.,
semiotic. As I've said, it could be a qualisign, an iconic sinsign, a
rhematic sinsign, a dicent sinsign [brute actuality]. If anything
functions as a stimulus - then it is triadic.
Edwina
On Tue 24/08/21 12:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign.
On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not
semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present
to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also
Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the
experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or
Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since
all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience'
provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual,
unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved.
But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that
Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the
interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical
and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23
Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we
go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis
of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his
synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what
WE experience but within that objective reality with which we
interact.
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 slide 31
Edwina, List: ET: It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. On the contrary, André is explicitly discussing phaneroscopy, not semeiotic. The phaneron encompasses whatever is or could be present to the mind in any way--not just Signs/mediation (3ns), but also Ideas/quality (1ns) and Brute Actuality/reaction (2ns). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > List > > It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the > experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic > Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since all > experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided > by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique, > non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved. > > But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that > Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction, > involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical > phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 > > Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go > from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of > Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism, > Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but > within that objective reality with which we interact. > > 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 slide 31
List The phrase that 'experience is our only teacher' 5.50 is, to me, an acknowledgement of the fact that we, as 'entities' or 'things' are in sensate interaction with other entities or 'things'. This is experience; the realm of our reception of the external world as the Dynamic Object. But this perception, which is experience, is not the same as learning. The teacher provides the Dynamic Objects - but we must interpret them and learn. That's a second step. As I commented before - Peirce writes "all learning is virtually reasoning; we have only to reflect that the mere experience of a sense-reaction is not learning. That is only something from which something can be learned, by interpreting it. The interpretation is the learning" 7.536 Peirce provides us with three elements of consciousness, Feeling, Altersense and Medisense [akin to the Three Categories] 7.551, but these are not acts of learning. Consciousness can classify, by grouping perceptions within the element of Medisense, but can it Interpret? Instead, my understanding is that, as Peirce writes, we must discriminate "between an inductive and a hypothetic explanation of the facts of human life. We have seen that every fact requires two kinds of explanation; the one proceeds by induction to replace its subject by a wider one, the other proceeds by hypothesis to replace its predicate by a deeper one. We have seen that these two explanations never coincide that both are indispensable….7.581 I interpret or misinterpret this to mean that Consciousness is the action within the phaneroscopy and operates within the three modes as outlined in 7.551 et al, which is that of primarily acknowledging the 'percepts', and associating or classifying them, and Mathematics provides the hypothetical explanations, which makes them 'teleological or purposive.7.570. That is - I'm sure that many people live completely within the realm of pure phenomenology or 'experience' and even move on to the classifying actions of induction and even, take its percepts as 'knowledge' [see Peirce's Fixation of Belief by tenacity, authority, a priori] and do not move on to scientific analysis and interpretation. That is, knowledge or learning requires two steps; experience or data-gathering and analysis or hypothetic interpretation. I don't see this outline within De Tienne - but - perhaps I am 'misinterpreting' him. Edwina On Tue 24/08/21 10:33 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the key word in Peirce’s work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it “phaneroscopy”) is experience. For that reason I included in a previous post links to Peirce’s remarks on direct experience [1] and to the chapter of my book [2] which deals more generally with experience. That chapter quotes Peirce’s categorical statement that “Experience is our only teacher” (CP 5.50, EP2:153). I thought these might be useful supplements to Peirce’s basic texts on phenomenology such as EP2:267-72. John Sowa, however, has completely ignored all of those sources in his argument that “diagram” should be the key word in De Tienne’s slides about phenomenology. Links: -- [1] https://gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm#dirxp [2] https://gnusystems.ca/TS/xpt.htm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 31
Gary F, List, Please don't attribute anything to me that I did not say. I totally agree with the following point. GF: Slide 31, following up on slide 30, make it perfectly clear that the key word in Peirces work on phenomenology (before and after he renamed it phaneroscopy) is experience. Experience in the phaneron is the starting point of phenomenology for Peirce, Aristotle, Hegel, Husserl... Aristotle's term, "pathemata tes psyches", can be translated directly to "experience in the phaneron". That is from the first paragraph of On Interpretation, which was a critical text for the scholastics Peirce admired. GF: John Sowa, however, has completely ignored all of those sources in his argument that diagram should be the key word in De Tiennes slides about phenomenology. No. I showed how ADT's slide 25 could be stated more clearly and precisely by using the word 'diagram'. I also said that he should continue to use that word in later slides, but certainly not to the exclusion of other words that Peirce explicitly used. We were having a friendly discussion of these issues. Why did you suddenly turn it into a blatant insult? 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 31
List It seems to me that De Tienne is here referring to the experience/consciousness that can be understood as a Qualisign, or Iconic Sinsign or even a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign. That is - since all experience is triadic - and since the descriptions of 'experience' provided by De Tienne seem to emphasize their being individual, unique, non-analyzed...then, there is no Thirdness involved. But, the Peircean notion of synechism/continuity suggests that Thirdness/generality/Mind..is somehow, at some time in the interaction, involved. "The synechist will not admit that physical and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct" 1893 EP2.23 Bringing in Robert Marty's 'Five Paths'...one wonders: 'where do we go from here'? After all, we are here involved purely in the semiosis of Firstness and Secondness and yet, as Peirce argues within his synechism, Mind or Thirdness has to be involved within not only what WE experience but within that objective reality with which we interact. Edwina On Mon 23/08/21 10:11 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent: 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) [1] site. Gary f. Text: Note that this understanding of experience is not equivalent to what will become the phaneron. But importantly Peirce has the clear idea that such experience is disconnected from previously assimilated knowledge. It is experience uninterpreted, and thus the very unfolding of the initial interpretation – the interpretation of unconditional living, the very reality of it detached from prior inquiry. Links: -- [1] https://peirce.iupui.edu/publications.html#presentations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
