JAS, List I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you are replying to my post, though you do not mention my name. I will post my answer as if your post was indeed, refering to my previous posts on the topic of novelty within semiosis..
I continue to disagree with your outline because I consider that you have set up a universe where all actualities are somehow indexically connected to an original ambiguous ‘potentiality’. This linearity neglects to explain the realities of both randomness and growth ‘a posteriori’ and self-organized within the actualities of the universe. Your claim that ALL actualities are linked to an original ‘potentiality’ is ambiguous and cannot be objectively or scientifically examined. However Firstness as chance, freedom and Thirdness as the growth of morphological habits can indeed be scientifically and objectively examined. You state that ‘nothing can be actual without first being possible’ – and I define this as determinism. Why? Because it defines ‘what is possible’ as somehow connected to that ‘original potentiality – and as I noted, such a claim is outside of any scientific or objective analysis. Whereas, I would say that ‘what is possible’ is ‘determined’ both by the physical and chemical parameters of the actualities already existent in the unvierse, ie, the chemical composition of matter, the laws of physics, the morphological forms already existent. These themselves came into being, as Peirce outlines in the three steps in 1.413 and have set up habits. Afterwards, within this basic infrastructure - we see a repetition of the three steps [see that original outline] ie, by the flexibility of chance to form totally new morphologies and habits within these parameters. …There is no evidence that these new morphologies over the millions of years of the earth’s development have anything to do with connections with ‘original potentiality’. Or Tokens of Types. And of course - one must question whether your ‘original potentiality’ includes not merely the new finches, or fish or…but also includes the wheel, the compass, the car, the vaccine, the.. As Peirce pointed out – evolution and adaptation proceed, via“the tychastic development of thought, then, will consist in slight departures from habitual ideas in different directions indifferently, quite purposeless and quite unconstrained whether by outward circumstances or by force of logic”,[Note: unconstrained by force of logic, to me,means unconnected to any potentiality].. these new departures being followed by unforeseen results which end to fix some of them as habits more than others” [6.307]. And some” atoms of the protoplasm have thus become partially emancipated from law”….and they will lose habits…and can even take on habits 6.266- ie, BOTH can happen...so that “diversification is the vestige of chance spontaneity,, and wherever diversity is increasing, there chance must be operative [6.267]. And habits change.[ 6.281]. I think that your and my outlines of the evolution of matter/mind within the universe, and our different readings of Peirce on this issue are incompatible – and I think that must end the discussion! I would be interested in other views from others on the list. Edwina > On Nov 16, 2025, at 7:53 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > Once more, I have changed the subject line so that this post and the one to > which it is a response are in a different thread, where they belong--we are > no longer discussing "Sign Tokens and Sign Types." Even so, I did touch on > "the reality of novelty in the universe" in my post > <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00064.html> yesterday in > that thread--it is right there in the quotation from it that is included > below, as well as in the immediately preceding sentence. > > JAS: Which of the infinite potentialities within that continuum are > actualized is where chance/spontaneity plays a role (tychism). > > Recognizing that nothing can be actual without first being possible is not > embracing necessitarianism/determinism. On the contrary, actualizing > something that is not possible is, quite literally, impossible in any > coherent metaphysical system. I am also not referring to Platonic forms that > "exist" in an immaterial realm, I am talking about Aristotelian potentiality; > after all, Peirce describes himself as "an Aristotelian of the scholastic > wing, approaching Scotism, but going much further in the direction of > scholastic realism" (CP 5.77n, EP 2:180, 1903). In his 1898 blackboard > lecture, he does talk about "Platonic worlds," but the very first time that > he uses the term, he explicitly distinguishes what he has in mind from > Plato's original conception. > > CSP: From this point of view we must suppose that the existing universe, with > all its arbitrary 2ns, is an offshoot from, or an arbitrary determination of, > a world of ideas, a Platonic world; not that our superior logic has enabled > us to reach up to a world of forms to which the real universe, with its > feebler logic, was inadequate. (CP 6.192) > > It is not that there are two distinct worlds, that of existing things and > that of ideas/forms, as Plato himself maintained. It is that our world of > existing things emerges from a world of ideas/forms, which is itself a > product of evolution. > > CSP: The evolutionary process is, therefore, not a mere evolution of the > existing universe, but rather a process by which the very Platonic forms > themselves have become or are becoming developed. (6.194) > The evolution of forms begins or, at any rate, has for an early stage of it, > a vague potentiality; and that either is or is followed by a continuum of > forms having a multitude of dimensions too great for the individual > dimensions to be distinct. It must be by a contraction of the vagueness of > that potentiality of everything in general, but of nothing in particular, > that the world of forms comes about. (6.196) > In short, if we are going to regard the universe as a result of evolution at > all, we must think that not merely the existing universe, that locus in the > cosmos to which our reactions are limited, but the whole Platonic world, > which in itself is equally real, is evolutionary in its origin, too. (6.200) > At the same time all this, be it remembered, is not of the order of the > existing universe, but is merely a Platonic world, of which we are, > therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated > to one another; until finally out of one of these Platonic worlds is > differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen > to be. (6.208) > > The original vast continuum of vague potentiality (3ns) contracts into a > collection of individual possibilities that together constitute a Platonic > world (1ns), from which our universe of existence is actualized (2ns). Peirce > even affirms that there are multiple such Platonic worlds--different > combinations of mutually consistent possibilities that are (or were) capable > of actualization--but as far as I know, he never states or implies that there > are other existing universes that have been actualized. After all, if they > are not reacting with our own universe, then they do not exist for us. > Invoking pragmaticism, they can make no difference whatsoever in our beliefs > and corresponding habits of conduct. > > That raises the question of why this universe exists and not another, which > again is where I see 1ns as chance/spontaneity coming into play--contributing > to which possibilities are actualized. Novelty "emerges" when a previously > unactualized possibility is actualized for the very first time--again, > spontaneity (1ns) is followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking (3ns). > > 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 > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 11:22 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Robert, Ulysses, JAS, List >> >> I did not receive either Robert’s or Ulysses’ posts. They came attached to >> this post from JAS. >> >> I note that JAS did not include my name in his response, and so, I am >> assuming that he does not want to take up the issue I have been posting >> about - namely, the reality of novelty in the universe. >> >> I have provided enough quotations and examples - But, the FACTS are, that >> Peirce includes the category of Firstness in his universe, and this means >> that both the emergence of novelty and its transformation into habit within >> Thirdness, is clearly outlined in his various examination of diversity and >> growth. >> >> Plus, his rejection of what he called ’necessitarianism’ and a priori >> determinism, means that it is quite incorrect to declare, as JAS has done, >> that >>> After all, nothing can become actual without first being a realpossibility, >>> i.e., a potentiality. This is consistent with my longstanding metaphysical >>> hypothesis that the constitution of being is an inexhaustible continuum >>> (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized >>> (2ns), and that the sequence of events in each case of the latter is >>> spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking (3ns). >> The above outline, in my view, rejects Peirce’s outline of the emergence of >> novel instances. It is incorrect, I suggest, to define actuality as >> dependent on a Firstness operating as ‘indefinite possibilities', which >> defines this category as some kind of Well-of-Platonic Forms [or God’s Will] >> - and we are back to a form of necessitarianism and determinism. . This puts >> the universe into some kind of predetermined identity - where these ‘Forms’ >> or possibilities have some kind of reality. And where there is no >> possibility of actual total novelty. This ignores Peirce’s clear definition >> of Firstness as ‘chance, freedom, ..and novelty. Complete novelty with no >> past defining them as ‘possibility’ and no clear path ‘forward’ so to speak. >> >> Peirce outlines how these novel deviations can become habits - and points >> out that habits do emerge, do grow. As I said - his tychasm and agapsm >> clearly show these actions. And we cannot ignore the increasing complexity >> of the universe. >> >> To posit that speciation and complexity is dependent on a pre-existent >> ‘well of possibilities’ requires that one explain how and why such an >> ‘infinite’ well came into being..and why novelty is rejected. After all- if >> one posits such an infinite realm of possibilities, then, this rejects >> self-organized novelty within the universe, and puts us back onto the >> 18th-19th pre-darwinian mindset of ‘It’s God’s Determination. It’s the same >> mindset - and too ambiguous to analyse. >> >> As for human or cognitive novelty and the emergence of for example, novel >> technological habits, there can be, I think, no question that these exist - >> and again, are not located in some pre-existent ‘realm of infinite >> possibilities. Whether it be the wheel or the compass or the vaccine - the >> ’shuffling’ of existent material entities and their rearrangement into a new >> entity [ the wheel, the spectacle, the engine,, the vaccine]..are novel >> entities with utterly new habits-of-formation. >> >> Therefore, again, I agree with Peirce that novelty and emergence of totally >> new entities andha bits is a reality - >> >> 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 [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.
