Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[robert marty]

Jon Alan, List
This response is another example of what I mean by "characteristic"
inability to produce a contrary argument. The corollary is a flight into
childish denials: no, no, no ... with always Nathan Houser used as an
authority figure of rescue, although I have shown that there is :
- misappropriation by the omission of the spirit of the whole text, The
forms of experience,
- misappropriation of the meaning of the word "juncture."
Regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 22:42, Jon Alan Schmidt  a
écrit :

> Robert, List:
>
> This response is another example of what I mean by a characteristic
> adversarial stance that is unwarranted. No one is advocating
> "discriminatory attitudes ... towards mathematics." No one considers
> mathematics to be "evil" within the context of phaneroscopy. There is no
> "movement that opposes this essential collaboration between mathematics and
> positive sciences." No one is undertaking an "offensive against
> mathematics." No one is disputing Houser's quoted conclusion. No one is
> claiming that there is a "rupture" or "separation" between mathematics and
> experience. No one is engaged in a "rearguard battle." Please stop erecting
> these strawmen.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:53 PM robert marty 
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Alan, List
>>
>> JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment not
>> supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes interpreted in
>> specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he is supposed to
>> criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that impute motives
>> without any justification. For my part, I will again carefully argue for
>> the benefit of those readers who will have the patience to follow my
>> detailed answer.
>>
>> 1- the first paragraph, whose first words reflect certain self-importance
>> ("I have refrained"), is of no interest since it contains only denials
>> without any argument refuting my allegations concerning the discriminatory
>> attitudes, underlined and sourced, towards mathematics in Belluci's text.
>>
>> 2 – the following paragraph, which begins with "*Instead, like Peirce*,"
>> is an outright annexation of Peirce in what  JAS  wants to make appear
>> "simply" as the camp of Orthodoxy. In this camp are those who know how to
>> distinguish, like Peirce, "phaneroscopy from mathematics "without 
>> "*disconnecting
>> or separating*" them.   It is a rhetorical figure of insinuation
>> introduced by "*Instead*" by which I am sent back to a camp of the "bad
>> guys," thus created in a performative way. This is the camp of those who
>> would voluntarily confuse these two levels. We guess that the whole sequel
>> will exploit this phantasmatic dichotomy of the Peircean community. But I
>> do not feel concerned because I place myself, *with Peirce, *in the camp
>> of those *"who* *distinguish*," except that I certainly have another
>> idea, always "*with Peirce*," of the connections between mathematics and
>> phaneroscopy.
>>
>> The following sentence goes even further with rhetoric (of the kind that
>> the semiologist Roland Barthes had detected [1]
>> <#m_-1940227308786793678_m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftn1>)
>>   which consists in first admitting a little evil in its camp (*Phaneroscopy
>> depends on mathematics for principles*) to justify saying a lot of evil
>> about the other camp which would like *to control and even reduce*
>> phaneroscopy to mathematics. This is a way to impute these bad intentions
>> to me without providing any proof. If he had read me, JAS would have known
>> that I have always proposed a collaboration in a mathematical framework
>> consubstantial with the three Categories and their necessary relations of
>> interdependence. No more, no less. This proves once again that JAS did not
>> read my critique since I conclude at the end of 2.1:
>>
>> "Moreover, Houser's last note 44, devoted to a comparison with Husserl's
>> phenomenology, with which I am in total agreement, leads to a scientific
>> practice that is the exact opposite of that advocated by Belluci:
>>
>> *'This is, perhaps, another similarity between Peirce's and Husserl's
>> phenomenologies. According to Dougherty (1983, p. 167), 'Of the many claims
>> made on its [Husserlian phenomenology's] behalf perhaps the most
>> interesting is that phenomenology is able to ground philosophical
>> assertions in a manner which is neither purely formal nor purely empirical,
>> i.e., that phenomenology as a method is capable of transcending this very
>> distinction.' Although what I have argued is, perhaps, at best suggestive
>> of this 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List

Are these strawmen? From my reading of the De Tienne slides, the
function of mathematics within our analysis of the world, an analysis
which includes phaneroscopy, seems to be non-existent.  De Tienne made
it very clear to us that mathematics was something so 'out of touch
with reality' that we, who want to experience the world, can readily
'transition out of it' and move away from it..because this ' phaneron
'experience' is disconnected from previously assimilated knowledge'. 

And yet, De Tienne, on some slides, acknowledges that some
mathematical forms can be encountered in experience. But - at the
same time, he urges us to 'transition out of mathematics'...showing a
clear separation or rupture.

None of this was critiqued...and instead, we were treated to a
bizarre wine-tasting outline of 'the categories'...and no examination
of whether mathematics was involved collaboratively or otherwise, or
how it functioned to be 'transitioned out of'...and so on.

the Belluci outline was filled with similar problems...

Edwina
 On Tue 05/10/21  4:42 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Robert, List:
 This response is another example of what I mean by a characteristic
adversarial stance that is unwarranted. No one is advocating
"discriminatory attitudes ... towards mathematics." No one considers
mathematics to be "evil" within the context of phaneroscopy. There is
no "movement that opposes this essential collaboration between
mathematics and positive sciences." No one is undertaking an
"offensive against mathematics." No one is disputing Houser's quoted
conclusion. No one is claiming that there is a "rupture" or
"separation" between mathematics and experience. No one is engaged in
a "rearguard battle." Please stop erecting these strawmen. 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] 
 On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:53 PM robert marty  wrote:
 Jon Alan, List

JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment
not supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes
interpreted in specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he
is supposed to criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that
impute motives without any justification. For my part, I will again
carefully argue for the benefit of those readers who will have the
patience to follow my detailed answer. 

1- the first paragraph, whose first words reflect certain
self-importance ("I have refrained"), is of no interest since it
contains only denials without any argument refuting my allegations
concerning the discriminatory attitudes, underlined and sourced,
towards mathematics in Belluci's text. 

2 – the following paragraph, which begins with "Instead, like
Peirce," is an outright annexation of Peirce in what  JAS  wants to
make appear "simply" as the camp of Orthodoxy. In this camp are those
who know how to distinguish, like Peirce, "phaneroscopy from
mathematics "without "disconnecting or separating" them.   It is a
rhetorical figure of insinuation introduced by "Instead" by which I
am sent back to a camp of the "bad guys," thus created in a
performative way. This is the camp of those who would voluntarily
confuse these two levels. We guess that the whole sequel will exploit
this phantasmatic dichotomy of the Peircean community. But I do not
feel concerned because I place myself, with Peirce, in the camp of
those "who distinguish," except that I certainly have another idea,
always "with Peirce," of the connections between mathematics and
phaneroscopy. 

The following sentence goes even further with rhetoric (of the kind
that the semiologist Roland Barthes had detected [1])   which
consists in first admitting a little evil in its camp (Phaneroscopy
depends on mathematics for principles) to justify saying a lot of
evil about the other camp which would like to control and even reduce
phaneroscopy to mathematics. This is a way to impute these bad
intentions to me without providing any proof. If he had read me, JAS
would have known that I have always proposed a collaboration in a
mathematical framework consubstantial with the three Categories and
their necessary relations of interdependence. No more, no less. This
proves once again that JAS did not read my critique since I conclude
at the end of 2.1: 

"Moreover, Houser's last note 44, devoted to a comparison with
Husserl's phenomenology, with which I am in total agreement, leads to
a scientific practice that is the exact opposite of that advocated by
Belluci: 

'This is, perhaps, another similarity between Peirce's and Husserl's
phenomenologies. According to Dougherty (1983, p. 167), 'Of the many
claims made on its [Husserlian phenomenology's] behalf 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

This response is another example of what I mean by a characteristic
adversarial stance that is unwarranted. No one is advocating
"discriminatory attitudes ... towards mathematics." No one considers
mathematics to be "evil" within the context of phaneroscopy. There is no
"movement that opposes this essential collaboration between mathematics and
positive sciences." No one is undertaking an "offensive against
mathematics." No one is disputing Houser's quoted conclusion. No one is
claiming that there is a "rupture" or "separation" between mathematics and
experience. No one is engaged in a "rearguard battle." Please stop erecting
these strawmen.

Regards,

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

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:53 PM robert marty 
wrote:

> Jon Alan, List
>
> JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment not
> supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes interpreted in
> specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he is supposed to
> criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that impute motives
> without any justification. For my part, I will again carefully argue for
> the benefit of those readers who will have the patience to follow my
> detailed answer.
>
> 1- the first paragraph, whose first words reflect certain self-importance
> ("I have refrained"), is of no interest since it contains only denials
> without any argument refuting my allegations concerning the discriminatory
> attitudes, underlined and sourced, towards mathematics in Belluci's text.
>
> 2 – the following paragraph, which begins with "*Instead, like Peirce*,"
> is an outright annexation of Peirce in what  JAS  wants to make appear
> "simply" as the camp of Orthodoxy. In this camp are those who know how to
> distinguish, like Peirce, "phaneroscopy from mathematics "without 
> "*disconnecting
> or separating*" them.   It is a rhetorical figure of insinuation
> introduced by "*Instead*" by which I am sent back to a camp of the "bad
> guys," thus created in a performative way. This is the camp of those who
> would voluntarily confuse these two levels. We guess that the whole sequel
> will exploit this phantasmatic dichotomy of the Peircean community. But I
> do not feel concerned because I place myself, *with Peirce, *in the camp
> of those *"who* *distinguish*," except that I certainly have another
> idea, always "*with Peirce*," of the connections between mathematics and
> phaneroscopy.
>
> The following sentence goes even further with rhetoric (of the kind that
> the semiologist Roland Barthes had detected [1]
> <#m_8517954477817507515_m_3816163190580610126__ftn1>)   which consists in
> first admitting a little evil in its camp (*Phaneroscopy depends on
> mathematics for principles*) to justify saying a lot of evil about the
> other camp which would like *to control and even reduce* phaneroscopy to
> mathematics. This is a way to impute these bad intentions to me without
> providing any proof. If he had read me, JAS would have known that I have
> always proposed a collaboration in a mathematical framework consubstantial
> with the three Categories and their necessary relations of interdependence.
> No more, no less. This proves once again that JAS did not read my critique
> since I conclude at the end of 2.1:
>
> "Moreover, Houser's last note 44, devoted to a comparison with Husserl's
> phenomenology, with which I am in total agreement, leads to a scientific
> practice that is the exact opposite of that advocated by Belluci:
>
> *'This is, perhaps, another similarity between Peirce's and Husserl's
> phenomenologies. According to Dougherty (1983, p. 167), 'Of the many claims
> made on its [Husserlian phenomenology's] behalf perhaps the most
> interesting is that phenomenology is able to ground philosophical
> assertions in a manner which is neither purely formal nor purely empirical,
> i.e., that phenomenology as a method is capable of transcending this very
> distinction.' Although what I have argued is, perhaps, at best suggestive
> of this Husserlian viewpoint, it seems to me that Peirce's phenomenology,
> because of its overlap with both mathematics and the positive sciences, is
> in more or less the same privileged position**.'* (p.24) [emphasize mine]
>
>
>
> It will be necessary to make a separate analysis - which will belong to
> the sociology of research - of this current movement that opposes this 
> *essential
> collaboration* *between mathematics and positive sciences.* Phaneroscopy
> has a privileged position. It would be a serious mistake to deny this; on
> the contrary, we should take advantage of it because it is rare in the
> Humanities. "(p.9-10) [end of quote]
>
>
>
> I solemnly draw the list's attention to Nathan Houser's position stated
> above, as I fully agree with it.
>
>
>
> 3 - The main point is precisely about the 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[robert marty]

Jon Alan, List

JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment not
supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes interpreted in
specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he is supposed to
criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that impute motives
without any justification. For my part, I will again carefully argue for
the benefit of those readers who will have the patience to follow my
detailed answer.

1- the first paragraph, whose first words reflect certain self-importance
("I have refrained"), is of no interest since it contains only denials
without any argument refuting my allegations concerning the discriminatory
attitudes, underlined and sourced, towards mathematics in Belluci's text.

2 – the following paragraph, which begins with "*Instead, like Peirce*," is
an outright annexation of Peirce in what  JAS  wants to make appear
"simply" as the camp of Orthodoxy. In this camp are those who know how to
distinguish, like Peirce, "phaneroscopy from mathematics "without
"*disconnecting
or separating*" them.   It is a rhetorical figure of insinuation introduced
by "*Instead*" by which I am sent back to a camp of the "bad guys," thus
created in a performative way. This is the camp of those who would
voluntarily confuse these two levels. We guess that the whole sequel will
exploit this phantasmatic dichotomy of the Peircean community. But I do not
feel concerned because I place myself, *with Peirce, *in the camp of those
*"who* *distinguish*," except that I certainly have another idea, always "*with
Peirce*," of the connections between mathematics and phaneroscopy.

The following sentence goes even further with rhetoric (of the kind that
the semiologist Roland Barthes had detected [1] <#_ftn1>)   which consists
in first admitting a little evil in its camp (*Phaneroscopy depends on
mathematics for principles*) to justify saying a lot of evil about the
other camp which would like *to control and even reduce* phaneroscopy to
mathematics. This is a way to impute these bad intentions to me without
providing any proof. If he had read me, JAS would have known that I have
always proposed a collaboration in a mathematical framework consubstantial
with the three Categories and their necessary relations of interdependence.
No more, no less. This proves once again that JAS did not read my critique
since I conclude at the end of 2.1:

"Moreover, Houser's last note 44, devoted to a comparison with Husserl's
phenomenology, with which I am in total agreement, leads to a scientific
practice that is the exact opposite of that advocated by Belluci:

*'This is, perhaps, another similarity between Peirce's and Husserl's
phenomenologies. According to Dougherty (1983, p. 167), 'Of the many claims
made on its [Husserlian phenomenology's] behalf perhaps the most
interesting is that phenomenology is able to ground philosophical
assertions in a manner which is neither purely formal nor purely empirical,
i.e., that phenomenology as a method is capable of transcending this very
distinction.' Although what I have argued is, perhaps, at best suggestive
of this Husserlian viewpoint, it seems to me that Peirce's phenomenology,
because of its overlap with both mathematics and the positive sciences, is
in more or less the same privileged position**.'* (p.24) [emphasize mine]



It will be necessary to make a separate analysis - which will belong to the
sociology of research - of this current movement that opposes this *essential
collaboration* *between mathematics and positive sciences.* Phaneroscopy
has a privileged position. It would be a serious mistake to deny this; on
the contrary, we should take advantage of it because it is rare in the
Humanities. "(p.9-10) [end of quote]



I solemnly draw the list's attention to Nathan Houser's position stated
above, as I fully agree with it.



3 - The main point is precisely about the dependence of phaneroscopy on
mathematics. I have constantly asked this question to the "*phaneroscopists*"
who lead the offensive against mathematics: "*How does this dependence
manifest itself if mathematics and mathematicians are relegated to a corner
where they engage in deductive activities disconnected from any
experiential reality?*"  For the first time, I have some sort of response
from JAS based mainly on a quote from Nathan Houser. This shows that JAS
has not read my critique, which he rejects because I have retained *the
same quote, but in favor of my point* (p.9)! It is therefore worth looking
at it more closely:



*"These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from experience, are
mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness, Secondness, and thirdness
constitute an important link between the a priori world of mathematics and
the contingent world of experience, at which juncture we find the ground of
phenomenology". *(p.21) [emphasize mine]



It is exciting because we can now clarify the postures thanks to the
meaning of the word "juncture." For 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET: Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have its own method and its own
procedures" [p 5] ?


Atkins evidently thinks so.

RKA: I have also argued that we need a broader, three-tiered conception of
phaneroscopy’s method. On the first tier of this conception is simply the
direct inspection of the phaneron. On the second tier is the description of
the phaneron. On the third tier is the analysis of the phaneron and the
assessment of this analysis as accurate and adequate. (Part Two, p. 112)


I suggest that the first two "tiers," inspection and description, are
unique to phaneroscopy. As Atkins also writes, "phaneroscopy is
distinguished from mathematics in that it observes the actual phaneron and
not merely hypothetical states of things" (p. 113 n. 4). Mathematics is
then *applied *in the third "tier," analysis and assessment. "Since
mathematics precedes phaneroscopy in Peirce’s classification of the
sciences, there is no problem in borrowing from mathematics to conduct
phaneroscopic analysis" (p. 103).

Regards,

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

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 8:33 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> I don't find that Marty's critique of Belluci was 'adversarial'. It filled
> in the missing critique of De Tienne, which was not critiqued by this List.
>
> Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have its own method and its own
> procedures" [p 5] ?
>
> Certainly, I didn't see these in De Tienne's outline, where phaneroscopy
> seemed, to me, to be a kind of emotional campfire explosion of open
> experience. What method? What procedure?
>
> Does mathematics operate in this 'experience'? Or is it entirely separate
> and 'left behind', as De Tienne seemed to suggest?
>
> And if it 'depends of mathematics for principles' [JAS], then how does
> this dependence actually function?
>
> Houser's quotation, again,  is"These categories, though abstractable
> [prescindable] from experience are methamatical conceptions. ….
>
> and phenomenology lies at 'the juncture' between the apriori concepts of
> mathematics and the contingent world of experience'.
>
> Therefore, it seems to me, that De Tienne's outline rests within Belluci's
> outline, for both of them seem to view the Peircean sciences as steps,
> where you simply leave the former one behind as you climb the ladder.
>
> 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] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[gnox]

Jon AS, list,

Your final paragraph (referring to the particular/material categories) 
reinforces a remark I made Wednesday concerning ADT’s slide 48: “Peirce 
indicates in a couple of texts that the “material categories” could be picked 
out phaneroscopically as well as the “universal categories,” but that he didn’t 
have much success at making a list of them, so he chose to focus on the formal 
elements of the phaneron instead (CP 1.284).” Here are the texts I had in mind, 
both from around 1905:

CSP: [[My three categories are nothing but Hegel's three grades of thinking. I 
know very well that there are other categories, those which Hegel calls by that 
name. But I never succeeded in satisfying myself with any list of them. We may 
classify objects according to their matter; as wooden things, iron things, 
silver things, ivory things, etc. But classification according to structure is 
generally more important. And it is the same with ideas. Much as I would like 
to see Hegel's list of categories reformed, I hold that a classification of the 
elements of thought and consciousness according to their formal structure is 
more important. ] —CP 8.213 ]

CSP: [[I invite you to consider, not everything in the phaneron, but only its 
indecomposable elements, that is, those that are logically indecomposable, or 
indecomposable to direct inspection. I wish to make out a classification, or 
division, of these indecomposable elements; that is, I want to sort them into 
their different kinds according to their real characters. I have some 
acquaintance with two different such classifications, both quite true; and 
there may be others. Of these two I know of, one is a division according to the 
form or structure of the elements, the other according to their matter. The two 
most passionately laborious years of my life were exclusively devoted to trying 
to ascertain something for certain about the latter; but I abandoned the 
attempt as beyond my powers, or, at any rate, unsuited to my genius. I had not 
neglected to examine what others had done but could not persuade myself that 
they had been more successful than I. Fortunately, however, all taxonomists of 
every department have found classifications according to structure to be the 
most important. ] CP 1.288, R 295 ]

A similar text appears in Lowell Lecture 3 
 . The two papers from R.K. Atkins, by 
the way, are dated 2012 and 2013, so presumably the “broadening” he proposes 
there (which would include the material categories) is incorporated into his 
2018 book Charles S. Peirce’s Phenomenology. I’m just getting started on the 
two papers though.

Gary f.

 

} I do not think much of a man who is no wiser today than he was yesterday. 
[Lincoln] {

  https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu  On 
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 1-Oct-21 21:25



 

Robert, List:

 

I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is indeed 
mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely repeat what I have 
already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a characteristic adversarial 
stance that is unwarranted since no one here (including Bellucci) is "in favor 
of an extreme minimization of mathematics or even its exclusion," nor are we 
seeking to "maintain a mistrust towards mathematics and mathematicians."

 

Instead, like Peirce, we are simply distinguishing phaneroscopy from 
mathematics, which does not entail disconnecting or separating phaneroscopy 
from mathematics. Phaneroscopy depends on mathematics for principles, but it is 
not controlled by nor reducible to mathematics. In particular, an absolutely 
essential difference between them is that phaneroscopy is a positive science, 
while mathematics is a strictly hypothetical science. This is perfectly 
consistent with Nathan Houser's conclusion that is favorably quoted (twice) and 
which no one is disputing.

 

NH: These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from experience, are 
mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness, secondness, and thirdness constitute 
an important link between the a priori world of mathematics and the contingent 
world of experience, at which juncture we find the ground of phenomenology. 
(https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience, p. 21)

 

On a more agreeable note, I appreciate the suggestion that phaneroscopy should 
draw from not only formal logic as the first branch of mathematics, but also 
its other two branches that have to do with discrete series and continua. This 
is consistent with something that Richard Kenneth Atkins highlights in his two 
papers on "Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy" 
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001, 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097 
 ), namely, that 
the universal/formal categories are 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List

I don't find that Marty's critique of Belluci was 'adversarial'. It
filled in the missing critique of De Tienne, which was not critiqued
by this List. 

Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have its own method and its
own procedures" [p 5] ?

Certainly, I didn't see these in De Tienne's outline, where
phaneroscopy seemed, to me, to be a kind of emotional campfire
explosion of open experience. What method? What procedure?

Does mathematics operate in this 'experience'? Or is it entirely
separate and 'left behind', as De Tienne seemed to suggest?

And if it 'depends of mathematics for principles' [JAS], then how
does this dependence actually function?

Houser's quotation, again,  is"These categories, though abstractable
[prescindable] from experience are methamatical conceptions. ….

and phenomenology lies at 'the juncture' between the apriori
concepts of mathematics and the contingent world of experience'.

Therefore, it seems to me, that De Tienne's outline rests within
Belluci's outline, for both of them seem to view the Peircean
sciences as steps, where you simply leave the former one behind as
you climb the ladder. 

Edwina
 On Fri 01/10/21  9:25 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Robert, List:
 I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is
indeed mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely
repeat what I have already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a
characteristic adversarial stance that is unwarranted since no one
here (including Bellucci) is "in favor of an extreme minimization of
mathematics or even its exclusion," nor are we seeking to "maintain a
mistrust towards mathematics and mathematicians." 
 Instead, like Peirce, we are simply distinguishing phaneroscopy from
mathematics, which does not entail disconnecting or separating
phaneroscopy from mathematics. Phaneroscopy depends on mathematics
for principles, but it is not controlled by nor reducible to
mathematics. In particular, an absolutely essential difference
between them is that phaneroscopy is a positive science, while
mathematics is a strictly hypothetical  science. This is perfectly
consistent with Nathan Houser's conclusion that is favorably quoted
(twice) and which no one is disputing.
 NH: These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from
experience, are mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness,
secondness, and thirdness constitute an important link between the a
priori world of mathematics and the contingent world of experience,
at which juncture we find the ground of phenomenology. (
https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience [1], p. 21)
 On a more agreeable note, I appreciate the suggestion that
phaneroscopy should draw from not only formal logic as the first
branch of mathematics, but also its other two branches that have to
do with discrete series and continua. This is consistent with
something that Richard Kenneth Atkins highlights in his two papers on
"Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy" (
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001 [2],
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097 [3]), namely,
that the universal/formal categories are discrete and extensive, while
the particular/material categories are continuous and intensive. I
might share more in the future as I further digest them.
 Regards,
 Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [5]
  On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:20 AM robert marty  wrote:
 List,
 Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
(DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci\'s paper. | robert
marty - Academia.edu [7]
  also available on ResearchGate : 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper

 Abstract :

The circumstances of the production of this critique show how
important it is for a community to have venues for debate that bring
together participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this
is not sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying
the precise circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it
as objectively as possible, arguing as clearly as I could,
scrupulously citing all my sources. I then drew some conclusions from
it, thanks to which it finds, it seems to me, its whole meaning.

__

 Regards, 
Robert Marty
 Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy 
 fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [8]
 https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [9] 
 Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty  a écrit :
  List,
 I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed
to me eight days ago. The same day, I 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is indeed
mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely repeat what I
have already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a characteristic
adversarial stance that is unwarranted since no one here (including
Bellucci) is "in favor of an extreme minimization of mathematics or even
its exclusion," nor are we seeking to "maintain a mistrust towards
mathematics and mathematicians."

Instead, like Peirce, we are simply *distinguishing *phaneroscopy from
mathematics, which does not entail *disconnecting *or *separating *phaneroscopy
from mathematics. Phaneroscopy *depends on* mathematics for principles, but
it is not *controlled by* nor *reducible to* mathematics. In particular, an
absolutely essential difference between them is that phaneroscopy is a
*positive
*science, while mathematics is a strictly *hypothetical *science. This is
perfectly consistent with Nathan Houser's conclusion that is favorably
quoted (twice) and which no one is disputing.

NH: These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from experience,
are mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness, secondness, and thirdness
constitute an important link between the a priori world of mathematics and
the contingent world of experience, at which juncture we find the ground of
phenomenology. (https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience, p.
21)


On a more agreeable note, I appreciate the suggestion that phaneroscopy
should draw from not only formal logic as the first branch of mathematics,
but also its other two branches that have to do with discrete series and
continua. This is consistent with something that Richard Kenneth Atkins
highlights in his two papers on "Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy" (
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097
), namely,
that the universal/formal categories are discrete and extensive, while the
particular/material categories are continuous and intensive. I might share
more in the future as I further digest them.

Regards,

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

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:20 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> List,
>
> Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
> (DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci's paper. | robert marty -
> Academia.edu
> 
>
>  also available on ResearchGate :
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper
> 
>
> *Abstract :*
>
> The circumstances of the production of this critique show how important it
> is for a community to have venues for debate that bring together
> participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this is not
> sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying the precise
> circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it as objectively as
> possible, arguing as clearly as I could, scrupulously citing all my
> sources. I then drew some conclusions from it, thanks to which it finds, it
> seems to me, its whole meaning.
>
> __
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Marty
>
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
> Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty  a
> écrit :
>
>> List,
>>
>> I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to
>> me eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed
>> receipt. However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by
>> particularly vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest
>> deviation. I reject the idea that they have concerted to ignore my remarks
>> because this would be an unworthy attitude on the part of researchers,
>> peirceans moreover.  It would therefore be a rare case on this list of 
>> *approval
>> by default*. Besides, I remembered a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot
>> consent" (Who doesn't say a word, consents). I am therefore entitled to
>> consider today that my criticism is fully recognized as fair and
>> well-founded. This encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this
>> kind of analysis of the relationship to mathematics to other eminent
>> researchers in the Peircean community.
>>
>> Many thanks and best regards,
>>
>> Robert Marty
>>
>> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>>
>> Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> List, I remind the thread opened by  Phillys 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[robert marty]

List,

Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
(DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci's paper. | robert marty -
Academia.edu


 also available on ResearchGate :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper


*Abstract :*

The circumstances of the production of this critique show how important it
is for a community to have venues for debate that bring together
participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this is not
sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying the precise
circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it as objectively as
possible, arguing as clearly as I could, scrupulously citing all my
sources. I then drew some conclusions from it, thanks to which it finds, it
seems to me, its whole meaning.

__

Regards,

Robert Marty



Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty  a
écrit :

> List,
>
> I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to me
> eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed receipt.
> However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by particularly
> vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest deviation. I reject
> the idea that they have concerted to ignore my remarks because this would
> be an unworthy attitude on the part of researchers, peirceans moreover.  It
> would therefore be a rare case on this list of *approval by default*.
> Besides, I remembered a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot consent" (Who
> doesn't say a word, consents). I am therefore entitled to consider today
> that my criticism is fully recognized as fair and well-founded. This
> encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this kind of analysis of
> the relationship to mathematics to other eminent researchers in the
> Peircean community.
>
> Many thanks and best regards,
>
> Robert Marty
>
>
> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
>
>
> Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty  a
> écrit :
>
>> List, I remind the thread opened by  Phillys Chiasson, entitled "Another
>> perspective."
>>  In
>> this thread, Gary Richmond wrote
>>  :
>>
>> *"I had a similar experience teaching undergraduate students in critical
>> thinking courses. I found that it doesn't take formal logic -- although a
>> bit of commonsensism seems requisite -- and soon the simple, ordinary,
>> naive observation of the phaneron (or whatever one cares to call it)
>> reveals that qualities, interactions, and thought-signs are all that there
>> is. One doesn't require the reduction thesis, or valency theory, or
>> mathematical logic, or graph theory to see the trichotomic structure of the
>> world." [emphasize mine]*
>>
>> John Sowa  answers him
>> :
>>
>> Have you ever seen a diagram and understood its implications?   Have you
>> ever drawn a diagram to illustrate some point in your lectures?  If you did
>> either of these two activities, you were using and understanding a subset
>> of graph theory.  *But* *if you want to get beyond an eighth-grade
>> education, doing a bit of studying helps a lot. *[emphasize mine]
>>
>>
>>
>> *I fully agree with this opinion. (RM) *
>>
>> Following  Gary f  intervene signaling  another perspective
>>  :
>>
>>
>>
>> *"For another perspective on the roles of mathematics and logic in
>> phaneroscopic analysis, see Francesco Bellucci's 2015 paper at*:
>> https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis
>> "
>>
>> Gary Richmond immediately declared his enthusiasm for this text and quoted
>> several extracts
>> .
>>
>> *"Thank you for posting this excellent short paper by Bellucci, without
>> doubt the best compact analysis I've read of "the roles of mathematics and
>> logic in phaneroscopic analysis."*
>>
>> I replied to GR that I did not share his enthusiasm for this text. But it
>> was an opinion. A real debate requires argumentation. So I took the time to
>> make a critical analysis of Belluci's paper (attached file). It is part of
>> a set of studies that I am making of the main texts available in the
>> literature about the bases of phaneroscopy and the practices associated
>> with 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[robert marty]

List,

I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to me
eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed receipt.
However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by particularly
vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest deviation. I reject
the idea that they have concerted to ignore my remarks because this would
be an unworthy attitude on the part of researchers, peirceans moreover.  It
would therefore be a rare case on this list of *approval by default*.
Besides, I remembered a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot consent" (Who
doesn't say a word, consents). I am therefore entitled to consider today
that my criticism is fully recognized as fair and well-founded. This
encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this kind of analysis of
the relationship to mathematics to other eminent researchers in the
Peircean community.

Many thanks and best regards,

Robert Marty


Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty  a
écrit :

> List, I remind the thread opened by  Phillys Chiasson, entitled "Another
> perspective."
>  In this
> thread, Gary Richmond wrote
>  :
>
> *"I had a similar experience teaching undergraduate students in critical
> thinking courses. I found that it doesn't take formal logic -- although a
> bit of commonsensism seems requisite -- and soon the simple, ordinary,
> naive observation of the phaneron (or whatever one cares to call it)
> reveals that qualities, interactions, and thought-signs are all that there
> is. One doesn't require the reduction thesis, or valency theory, or
> mathematical logic, or graph theory to see the trichotomic structure of the
> world." [emphasize mine]*
>
> John Sowa  answers him
> :
>
> Have you ever seen a diagram and understood its implications?   Have you
> ever drawn a diagram to illustrate some point in your lectures?  If you did
> either of these two activities, you were using and understanding a subset
> of graph theory.  *But* *if you want to get beyond an eighth-grade
> education, doing a bit of studying helps a lot. *[emphasize mine]
>
>
>
> *I fully agree with this opinion. (RM) *
>
> Following  Gary f  intervene signaling  another perspective
>  :
>
>
>
> *"For another perspective on the roles of mathematics and logic in
> phaneroscopic analysis, see Francesco Bellucci's 2015 paper at*:
> https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis
> "
>
> Gary Richmond immediately declared his enthusiasm for this text and quoted
> several extracts
> .
>
> *"Thank you for posting this excellent short paper by Bellucci, without
> doubt the best compact analysis I've read of "the roles of mathematics and
> logic in phaneroscopic analysis."*
>
> I replied to GR that I did not share his enthusiasm for this text. But it
> was an opinion. A real debate requires argumentation. So I took the time to
> make a critical analysis of Belluci's paper (attached file). It is part of
> a set of studies that I am making of the main texts available in the
> literature about the bases of phaneroscopy and the practices associated
> with them in the framework of the Sciences of Discovery.
>
> Although the text is short, I had to spend a lot of time on it. But it
> also allowed me to show that there has been a strong movement in the
> Peircean community for quite a long time in favor of an extreme
> minimization of mathematics or even its exclusion. It is explicitly
> admitted above by Gary Richmond.
>
> In addition, I could situate my mathematical modeling of Phaneroscopy and
> semiotics. Finally, two camps are emerging, as defined by the ethnologist
> Claude Lévy-Strauss, after his successful collaboration with the great
> mathematician André Weil: the "bricoleurs" and the "engineers." This
> collaboration is refused for reasons that belong to the sociology of
> research. They deserve a separate study.
>
> Best  regards,
>
> Robert Marty
> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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