Jerry, List Thank you for your post, especially in introducing the idea of 'handedness' (chirality) into the discussion. I would hold that across science and philosophy that chirality has moved from a 'quirk' of geometry to a fundamental principle of asymmetry not only in chemistry, but in physics, biology, and metaphysics. It shows that left - right distinctions are not conventional but deeply real. I am assuming that you'd agree.
[For those who are not familiar with the concept of chirality, I'd recommend: Martin Gardner, *The Ambidextrous Universe *(1964), a popular science book which has as a central theme, chirality, specially in biochemistry, where life’s molecular 'building blocks' display handedness.] While I will most certainly have to defer to you in matters of chemistry, Jerry, I would like to make a few general comments since chirality has long interested me, and I was pleased to find it discussed in Peirce's work. (I can't offer specific passages here, but will do so if there is interest in this thread). In geometry, a left hand and a right hand are congruent in most respects yet can't be superimposed. Peirce tied this to his larger interest in dimensionality, noting that chirality arises in 3-D space in a way it cannot in two, exemplifying how new qualities emerge with higher continua. In logic and semiotics chirality served as an analogy for the non-interchangeability of relations. Just as a right-hand glove cannot be worn on the left hand, certain logical relations cannot be reversed. Peirce argued that signs operate within ordered structures where directionality matters. The left - right distinction shows how relations may be asymmetrical in principle, not just in practice. At a metaphysical level, Peirce connected handedness to certain cosmological doctrines. Chirality, as seen in natural phenomena -- like the handedness of biological molecules -- right-handed and left-handed "screw-structures” (as Peirce terms them) --in certain molecules) -- point to the role of spontaneous asymmetry in the emergence of order. Best, Gary R On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 12:07 AM Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List: > > This shift of philosophical perspective was profound; I noted it years > ago. > > I have a chemical lens through which I read. I concluded that the shift > corresponded with the scientific discovery of the electron as a logical > particle, circa 1898. This discovery annihilated his theory of the discrete > mathematics of chemistry and forced his logic to accommodate the geometric > consequences of Pastuer’s discover of the handedness of tartaric acid > isomers and the subsequent explanation of the same by Vant Hoff and LaBell > in the late 1870’s as continuous mathematical functions. > > I have previously mentioned CSP’s role in the development of the perplex > number systems; it contributed to the triadic modal logic of chemical > sentences. More specifically, to the relationships between the copulative > relatives as indices becoming the legisign. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > On Oct 3, 2025, at 5:28 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > Over the many years that we've been discussing Peirce's speculative > cosmology on Peirce-l, and my being especially interested in the topic -- > and so having read as much about it as I've been able to get my hands on -- > I have come to the conclusion that there is a shift in Peirce's speculative > cosmology between the 1860's, '70's and early 80's, and his later writings > of the 1890s, especially the Cambridge Lectures of 1898, then into the 20th > century. I would further argue that he never dropped the earlier view, but > developed, 'complicated', and reframed it, including as regards his three > categories. First, I'll lay out the contrast between his earlier and later > views as I see them, and then suggest how they might be integrated. > > The early cosmology would seem to suggest an emergence from pure 1ns. In > the 1860's, '70's, and especially in the 1880's (see: "A Guess at the > Riddle," “Design and Chance,” "The Law of Mind"), Peirce described the > universe as originating in a state of absolute nothingness. However, he > defined this “nothing” not as a negation, but as a positive kind of pure > potentiality associated with 1ns: sheer, unbounded possibility without law, > relation, or determinacy. > From this initial 'chaos of feeling', the beginnings of 2ns: (brute > action/reaction, resistance, etc.) gradually emerged, and then, over time, > 3ns (regularities, habits, eventually general laws) began to form. So, this > view is one of a world arising from formless possibility, with law and > order as products of evolution > > However, by the time of his 1898 Cambridge lectures, Peirce had begun to > imagine something somewhat different. There, in his famous 'blackboard' > analogy, he suggests that before any actual universe could come into > existence that there must have been a kind of general continuity (what I've > termed 'ur-continuity', 3ns) already in place, this analogous to the empty > but (for the purpose of the analogy)* continuous *expanse of a blackboard > on which marks might be made. This *proto-universe* is not a chaos of > pure 1ns, but rather a background of continuity (3ns) and generality (3ns) > in which certain possibilities and actualities could appear. So, instead of > laws developing out of chaos, Peirce in 1898 stressed that the general > (3ns) itself is primordial. What comes 'first' is not a 'nothing' teeming > with 1ns, but rather the indefinite continuum of 3ns, an ur-generality that > makes possible both the play of qualities and the clash of events. (I've > occasionally pointed to the "Mathematics of Logic" paper as Peirce himself > suggesting how difficult it is for some (especially some of the best > minds, he remarks) to imagine 3ns as 1st (first); but top-down logic > requires it.) > > Can these two accounts be integrated? Well, I'm not sure of that, but I do > think that they need not essentially contradict each other, that they > rather represent a shift in emphasis. So: > > In his earlier cosmological thinking (from the side of 1ns) Peirce > underscores that the universe had to arise from a state *prior to > determination*, from sheer spontaneity (1ns), vague possibility (1ns). > Without this, nothing new could ever come about. > > In his later view (from the side of 3ns), Peirce argues that possibility > (1ns) cannot be considered except against the backdrop of a general > continuity (3ns). Pure spontaneity, pure possibility would be nothing at > all unless they subsist within a continuum, a field in which they can > appear, disappear, reappear, connect, and stabilize. In short, the > blackboard (3ns) provides the proto-condition for the manifestation of 1ns, > while the chalk marks (the 'difference', 2ns) portend the proto-conditions > for the brute emergence that will begin the process of cosmogenesis of a > universe, viz., ours. (While I do not, some might want to think of this > "brute emergence" initiating cosmogenesis as the Big Bang.) > > What I am suggesting is that Peirce’s speculative cosmology might be read > in a kind of dialectical overlay: pure 1ns affording the possibility of > emergence in sheer spontaneity. However, this possibility only can become a > cosmos within the more primordial field of general continuity (3ns, > ur-continuity, the 'blackboard' on which potential qualities and reactions > can begin to register). > > The above is but a brief outline of what I've been thinking about for > years regarding these two phases -- as I see it -- of Peirce's cosmological > thinking. It is, of course, dependent on many sources too numerous to name, > but here are a few: > Vincent Colapietro, Carl Hausman, Cheryl Misak, Richard Kenneth Atkins, > Kelly A. Parker, Jon Alan Schmidt, Lucia Santaella. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:17 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary R, list >> >> I appreciate your attempt to bring disparate views together, but I think >> they must remain – disparate. >> >> For example, I consider that JAS’s view of the universe and mine – are >> polar opposites. >> >> I consider JAS’s outline with its top down framework to be a >> deterministic, a priori centralized process, ignoring Peirce’s outline of >> >> - The formation of the universe from NOTHING [ 1.412,, >> 6.217, EP2:322] which means – there is no determinism, no specific focus – >> only a ‘desire’ to be instantiated. – which instantiations are always in a >> triadic set [EP2;394] >> >> - >> >> - The reality of Firstness as a basic >> categorical/organizational mode, which means that freedom and chance are a >> basic component of the universe. See the element of absolute chance in >> nature’ 7.514 >> >> - >> >> - - the reality of Thirdness, which means that >> self-organization of the ‘instantiations [in Secondness] of the universe >> operates by means of communal habits which enable both complex networks of >> relations and continuity of type - which in turn prevents entropic >> dissipation >> >> - >> >> - - the reality that Thirdness as the laws of organization >> evolves and changes, A habit might have evolved by chance [ 7: 521] ‘the >> first germ of law was an entity, which itself arose by chance, that is as a >> First”…but, this habit would then become a continuity of organization for[ >> 7.515 ], “a law can evolve or develop itself…with a ‘generalizing >> tendency”. See also7.512 ‘the laws of nature are the results of an >> evolutionary process’..which is ‘still in progress’ 7.514. >> >> - >> >> - As he writes” the laws of the universe have been formed >> under a universal tendency of all things toward generalization and >> habit-taking [7.515]. This means – that these laws are formed within and BY >> the universe itself as a semiosic process- and- that this is a dynamic of >> changing process, for, in both cerebral theory and molecular ‘”the >> non-conservative elements are the predominant ones”.- which makes sense, >> since the instantiations [ entities organized in Secondness] have finite >> life spans >> >> - >> >> - Given this brief outline – my view of the Peircean >> semiosis is that there is no ‘semiotic whole’ and certainly, no >> ‘constituent parts’. Instead, the universe is a CAS, a complex adaptive >> system of energy forming itself into matter,, as triadic instantiations or >> Signs, within all three categorical modes [1ns, 2ns, 3ns]which are >> networked with each other …. >> >> >> Edwina >> >> On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:59 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> This thread seems to me to have the potential of *possibly* bridging >> *some* of the conceptual gaps between seemingly *very different views* >> regarding basic understandings of Peirce's semeiotic. So, thanks for >> introducing it, Gary F. and for providing links to the very relevant >> passages in your Turning Signs from which we read, for example: >> >> >> GF: rather than think of meanings as built up from their component parts, >> we might better think of them as processes analyzed into those parts for >> semiotic purposes. Semiosis, even at the most primitive level, is always a >> process which must continue for some time in some direction (toward the >> making of some pragmatic difference such as a habit-change). Irreducible >> Thirdness is essential to it. With this in mind, Peirce gives a holistic >> top-down account of the relations between arguments, propositions and >> ‘names’ (i.e. ‘terms’), upending ‘the traditional view that a Proposition >> is built up of Names, and an Argument of Propositions.’ >> "… an Argument is no more built up of Propositions than a motion is built >> up of positions." CSP >> >> >> Gary’s initial framing of the discussion as Peirce’s semeiotic holism >> might prove to be an important touchstone here reminding us that perceived >> objects can themselves be understood as 'artifacts of analysis' in much the >> same way that individual signs are abstractions from the general semeiotic >> flow. Gary's reference to current neurobiological research provides >> posteriori support for Peirce’s insight that at least the perceptual >> continuum precedes our analytic parsing of it. >> >> GF: Unhealthy as it may be for a special interest or subsystem to >> dominate a system, there is a kind of temporary dominance which may be >> necessary for a complex system to act as a unit. For instance, >> >> >> In human as well as nonhuman species, functions seem to be apportioned >> asymmetrically to the cerebral hemispheres, for reasons which probably have >> to do with the need for one final controller rather than two, when it comes >> to choosing an action or a thought. If both sides had equal say on making a >> movement, you might end up with a conflict – your right hand might >> interfere with the left, and you would have a lesser chance of producing >> coordinated patterns of motion involving more than one limb. — Damasio >> (1994) >> >> . . . . . . . . >> >> . . . it's the left hemisphere's function to ‘break up the holistic >> fabric of reality’. In this way neuropsychology confirms Peirce's >> phenomenology which puts the wholeness of feelings First and analysis into >> parts Second. From this follows Peirce's holistic approach to ‘Logic, or >> the essence of Semeiotics.’ >> >> >> Jon takes this holism as ontologically fundamental: the universe is not >> assembled from elementary sign-units but is 'perfused with signs' within a >> vast continuum from which particulars are prescinded. This aligns with >> Peirce’s *late cosmological vision* of the cosmos as 'one immense sign'. >> In this view, both perception and reasoning begin as undivided wholes, >> and terms and propositions are artifacts of analysis. >> >> Edwina pushes back against the idea of ontological priority for the whole >> stressing Peirce’s *realism*, that is, that there are real things whose >> characters are independent of our opinions, of our analyses. For her, >> semiosis is a matter of triadic processes constantly forming and dissolving >> real entities that exist for varying durations within a CAS. In her view >> (if I'm not mistaken), individuality is emergent, operating through >> networks of triadic relations. >> >> Edwina’s view would seem to resonate with Peirce’s early/middle realism >> and the concreteness of triadic relations, while Jon’s view resonates more >> with Peirce’s late philosophy (including a cosmology of continuity, >> universe as sign, synechism, agapism, etc.) where the holism of semiosis is >> central. Still, Edwina is correct, I think, in arguing that Peirce never >> abandoned his 'critical' realism about real things and his insistence on *the >> irreducibility of triadic relations in the generation of these things*. >> In a word, Jon’s reading stresses Peirce’s synechistic holism, Edwina’s his >> insistence on real triadic relations. >> >> Do Gary F's comments perhaps help bridge these positions? To me they >> suggest that Peirce’s holistic semeiotic can be grounded in both >> phenomenological analysis and empirical science, that Peirce’s insights can >> be seen to gel with contemporary scientific perspectives. Still: >> >> GF: . . . neuropsychology confirms Peirce's phenomenology which puts the >> wholeness of feelings First and analysis into parts Second. From this >> follows Peirce's holistic approach to ‘Logic, or the essence of Semeiotics.’ >> >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> List >>> >>> I disagree with the outline >>> >>> the semeiotic whole is ontologically prior to its constituent parts >>> (top-down); not the other way around, as if the former were *assembled *from >>> the latter as its basic units in the reductionist sense (bottom-up). The >>> entire universe is not *composed *of individual signs as its building >>> blocks, it is instead *perfused *with signs (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, >>> 1906)--a vast symbol that *involves *indices and icons (CP 5.119, EP >>> 2:193-4, 1903). >>> >>> The above, in my view, is moving into romantic mysticism. In my >>> understanding of Peirce’s semiosis, the universe, as a semiotic whole is >>> not ontologically prior to its constituents, but is instead, totally >>> composed in the ‘here and now’ of its constituent parts – which are triadic >>> sets- functioning as semiosic processes. There is neither an >>> ontological prior nor post reality; ie, no top down nor bottom up. . >>> >>> Instead, as Peirce wrote, “There are Real things, whose characters are >>> entirely independent of our opinions about them’..5.384. We must >>> acknowledge this. This does not mean that individual entities exist ‘per >>> se’ in the atomic materialist sense – which has long been debunked. >>> Instead, it acknowledges that this semiosic universe operates as >>> energy/matter constantly forming existentially distinct units. Each entity- >>> which actually has a morphology of a triadic- hexadic set of >>> relations- may last as such for a nanosecond to a hundred, thousands of >>> years ; eg, an atom, a tree, a mountain… When we examine individuality >>> further in its indexicality, we see how the individual unit operates only >>> within a network of relations with other ‘individual entities’ – which >>> relationships can be outlined in any of the ten basic classes of triads, or >>> the more complex 28 hexadic relationships. >>> >>> What does this mean? To me it means that the universe is a CAS, a >>> complex adaptive system, a self-organized phaneron of energy-as-matter [aka >>> signs], constantly developing new individual entities, operating within >>> habits -of-morphological organization, which habits themselves evolve and >>> adapt. The purpose? I’m afraid I go no further than ‘to prevent entropic >>> dissipation of energy. ..and this is not an ’ontologically prior agenda’. >>> >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 1:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Gary F., List: >>> >>> I appreciate the subject line, emphasizing that the semeiotic whole is >>> ontologically prior to its constituent parts (top-down); not the other way >>> around, as if the former were *assembled *from the latter as its basic >>> units in the reductionist sense (bottom-up). The entire universe is not >>> *composed >>> *of individual signs as its building blocks, it is instead *perfused *with >>> signs (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)--a vast symbol that *involves *indices >>> and icons (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-4, 1903). >>> >>> I have indeed regularly quoted that 1906 passage in R 295 (finally >>> published at LF 3/1:234-5) to support my conception of the universe as one >>> immense sign, a semiosic continuum, an ongoing inferential process--an >>> argument from which we prescind facts as represented by propositions using >>> names, those "smaller" signs thus being artifacts of analysis along with >>> their associated objects and interpretants (see also CP 2.27, 1902). I also >>> maintain that perception is likewise an undivided whole from which we >>> prescind predicates, hypostasize some of them into subjects, and attribute >>> others to those subjects in propositions, namely, perceptual >>> judgments-- "the first premisses of all our reasonings" (CP 5.116, EP >>> 2:191, 1903). I provide a few quotations from Peirce to support that >>> understanding in section 3.5 of my "Semiosic Synechism" paper ( >>> https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 11:38 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If I may, I’d like to move on to some *a posteriori* reasoning (i.e. >>>> evidence from the “positive sciences” of phenomenology, neuropsychology and >>>> biology) that seems to support aspects of Peirce’s category-based >>>> semeiotics. >>>> >>>> Helmut, some time ago you expressed some skepticism about my remark in >>>> a post that perceived objects are “artifacts of analysis” just as signs >>>> are. I didn’t have the time to clarify what I meant back then, but perhaps >>>> I can make up for that now, by offering this link: >>>> https://gnusystems.ca/TS/scp.htm#csptd . >>>> >>>> I’m sure that 1906 passage has been cited here before (probably by >>>> JAS), but not the neurobiological work that supports it, which begins here: >>>> https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#x13 . That passage from *Turning >>>> Signs* also links to the one above. >>>> >>>> Love, gary f >>>> >>>> Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg >>>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> [email protected] . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM >>> PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default >>> email account, then go to >>> https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . >>> ► 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 >>> [email protected] . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM >>> PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default >>> email account, then go to >>> https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . >>> ► 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 [email protected] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM > PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default > email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► 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 [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
