20220905112650 📃 epistemy and its limits

¶1. Epistemy is the process whereby a man knows and justifies his knowing. Positive epistemy is justification, negative epistemy is mere claimance. Semiosy mediates between positive and negative epistemy - it is the transition out of claimance into justification, and out of justification into claimance.

¶2. Epistemy is thus, at once, (1) dialectics (positive epistemy) (2) method (semiosy) and (3) publication (negative epistemy). It stands against both epistemology and epistemics. epistemology is the science of the principles (or first premises) of knowing, and epistemics are the doctrines whereby epistemology proceeds. Thus, any claim or logic is epistemic if and only if it furnishes epistemology with content. As process, epistemy is the totality which comprehends all knowledge-making processes. On analysis, therefore, semiosy is the master science of epistemology and the special sciences, since all knowledge is, in fact, semiotic. Thus epistemy comprehends epistemology and all things epistemic as their historical outgrowth, their becoming.

¶3. Any one man cannot proceed in epistemy unless he is familiar with (1) a dialectical procedure (2) methods of (a) epistemology and (b) a science, as sign-reading (3) publishing methods, or an idiolectical procedure. Epistemy, as a valid activity for-itself, must be founded on all three - a relevant process of justification and self-reconstruction/self-correction, its first principles for justified true belief and the methods accreting out of those principles, and finally methods for public declaration of one’s findings. As modes of consciousness, these are comprehended synthetically as: (1) dialecticity (2) science and (3) spokesmanship.

¶4. Any one man cannot be all three modes of epistemy at once. The transition from (2) to (3) moves through an egoistic counterfactual, as said elsewhere. The transition from (1) to (2), however, proceeds through a premise altogether different. Prima facie: this might be something like, “if I do not speak with, then I cannot speak about.” This premise destroys the antagonism between dialectics and idiolectics - without dialectics, all is idiolectics. But idiolectics have no content without dialectics, and thus collapse entirely.

¶5. Now, in order for these three to circulate in a mediated antagonism, each must understand it’s own insufficiency. For this, each must undergo its own inner opposition and self-sublation. Thus, dialectics begin with a positive moment, are neutrally mediated, and Sublate themselves through a negative moment. Dialectics are only the face-to-face encounter with a determinate right/wrong at their conclusion; absent this determination, they are merely dialogical. Positive dialectics are ego-assertions, or the brute opposition between differences of experience. Neutral dialectics are the unfolding of these experiences. Negative dialectics are a master-slave dialectic, with a determinate winner and loser, the winner right and the loser wrong. The winner is he who proves the loser’s account to, on his own account, work towards his own. This winner is enabled to appeal to a semiotics, whereas the loser’s appeal is always comprehended by that of the winner. For that is winning - it is not a truth claim, but the appearance of a more fecund referential scheme which subsumes the opponent’s claims.

¶6. The diversity of semiotics’ methods means that their inner content cannot be explicated in the structure given here. Rather, further work must be done to enunciate the semiotic appeal. This appeal is dual, occurring both as (1) a local reference and (2) a global instantiation. As (1), semiotics and idiolectics are situated beneath the master-slave dialectic as a performance. They are deliverances of a “truth.” As (2), these are merely universal premises which can themselves be instantiated in the practice of the semiotics appealed to. Thus, as a totality, (1) and (2) “win” above the loser because the winner is a moment of the speech-situation of which he claims. Thus, winning dialectical content is always in-itself as defeating its opponent and for-itself as warranting further action as following from the in-itself.

¶7. The above expresses the truth of a debate. in-itself, it is merely a show of truth. For-itself, it is the publication of the truth claimed, instantiating that truth as broadcasting the first premises for subsequent action. Any debate lacking such premises is a false debate, a mere show of ideas without actionable consequences.

¶8. Likewise, the moments of dialectics are only the moments of epistemy within the context of the face-to-face opposition. Ego-assertion is a face-to-face dialectic. Experience-unfolding is a face-to-face semiotic - the immanent sign-interpretation needed for each interlocutor to live. The master-slave dialectic is a face-to-face idiolectic - a here-and-now indifferent to the world; here and now, one must win with truth and the other lose with falsity.

¶9. The audience member as a tertium quid between the dialecticians is enabled to be a semiotician via the winner and his appeal - he lives that to which that winner appeals. For this, the semiotician first remembers the dialectic between himself and the dialectician. In this way, the total actuality of the winner becomes the life of the semiotician - he is the actuator of neutral epistemy. He takes scientific action hereby - an immanent semiotics between subject/object. In accruing scientific experience, the semiotician-scientist forms his ownmost premises - he thinks as an idiolectician. This takes the form of a then/now opposition. Publishing these, he invites dialectics and repeats the process anew.

¶10. Idiolectics therefore proceeds exactly as dialectics, but sub specie ego. Idiolectics are therefore always written or delivered as a monologue. That is, whereas dialectics positively proceed face-to-face, idiolectics negatively proceeds face-against-world. For, the idiolectian fights against a world indifferent to him and struggles to make it adequate to him. The idiolectician aims to “make the world his own.” Thus, the moments of idiolectics proceed identically: ego-assertion, experience-unfolding, and master-slave. Here, however, another face is not made the idiolectician’s slave. Rather, all the world is made his slave as he seeks to comprehend it under his ego as his own. Here, the world as loser is shown to be Immanently false, rational only under the aspect of the totality given by the idiolectician. As an immanent critic, the idiolectician therefore appeals to the possibility of dialectics, the defense of his position. The local appeal asserts the possibility of the idiolectic - this is one possible writing. The global appeal asserts the actuality - this is an actual writing with real force. The total appeal asserts the speculative necessity - this writing is a creative truth, pragmatically and warrantably assertible. Here, totality is proved not by a semiotician but by a dialectician - he becomes the immanent actuality of the idiolectic, for his speech defends it and justifies it.

¶11. Thus, in summary: (1) dialectics justify idiolectics (2) semiotics creates beliefs debated by dialectics (3) idiolectics asserts the conclusions of semiotic investigation.

¶12. No man can be a dialectician, semiotician, and idiolectician at the same time. Any idiolectic must proceed as un-dialectical in the sense given here - it must be interpersonally one-sided, for it considers all under the aspect of the ego. Thus, one-sidedness is no reproach, but a mere statement of fact. One-sidedness must collapse in time, as epistemy reconstitutes itself through the dialectic-idiolectic antagonism.

  1. Positive epistemy (dialectics)
    1. Positive - ego-assertion
    2. Neutral - experience-unfolding
      1. Immanent
      2. Transcendental
      3. Total
    3. Negative - master-slave
      1. Loser
      2. Winner
      3. Winner’s Appeal
        1. Local - possibility
        2. Global - actuality
        3. Total - speculative necessity
  2. Neutral epistemy (semiotics)
    1. Memory - self/other
    2. Action - subject/object
    3. Experience - then/now
  3. Negative epistemy (idiolectics)
    1. Positive - ego-assertion
    2. Neutral - experience-unfolding
    3. Negative - master-slave
      1. World-Loser
      2. Ego-Winner
      3. Winner’s appeal
        1. Local
        2. Global
        3. Total
aspect positive epistemy neutral epistemy negative epistemy
interpersonally Dialectics semiotics Idiolectics
rhetorically speech investigation Writing
gramatically we Me I
Actually idiolectics dialectics semiotics
epistemologically justification belief-creation assertion

This line appears after every note.

Notes mentioning this note

Here are all the notes in this garden, along with their links, visualized as a graph.