List: For the third time, I am responding in this thread to a post that belongs here, not in another thread about a different topic. With respect to "Sign Tokens and Sign Types," I will simply point out again that, as quoted below, Peirce states plainly that anything "which should have a unique embodiment, incapable of repetition, would not be a representamen" (CP 5.138, EP 2:203, 1903)--if any such strictly singular thing exists at all, it is *impossible *for it to be a *sign*.
With respect to the emergence of novelty, I am not aware of *any* text where Peirce uses the word "random" when discussing tychism as "the doctrine that absolute chance is a factor of the universe" (CP 6.201, 1898). Instead, he states, "Thus, when I speak of chance, I only employ a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity" (ibid.). Chance, freedom, and spontaneity are *not *synonymous with randomness in this context, and no one is disputing that they are *real*. On the contrary, as I have acknowledged previously, the logic of actualization *begins *with spontaneity (1ns), which is followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking (3ns). However, I also maintain that this occurs *within *the constitution of being, which is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). Every *actual *individual must first be a *potential *individual of a general kind, even if it is the *very first* of that kind to be actualized, and thus a novelty within our universe of existence. This primordiality of 3ns as potentiality, generality, and continuity is not *my *suggestion, it is *Peirce's* conception as explicitly and repeatedly asserted in his 1898 blackboard lecture. "Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the *original *vague potentiality ... We see the *original *generality like the ovum of the universe ... This habit is a generalizing tendency, and as such a generalization, and as such a general, and as such a continuum or continuity. It must have its origin in the *original *continuity which is inherent in potentiality. Continuity, as generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general. ... The *original *potentiality is essentially continuous, or general" (CP 6.203-5; bold added). In short, for *anything whatsoever *that comes into existence and then persists, that *habit* "must have its origin in the *original *continuity which is inherent in potentiality." This obviously *does not *entail determinism or necessitarianism, which Peirce vigorously rejects, and self-generation/self-organization is not the *only *viable alternative. 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 Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 8:25 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, List" > > JAS wrote that > > What I continue to question, especially in light of (CP 5.138, EP 2:203, > 1903) and the absence of a concrete example, is whether there are any such > *actual *signs. > > > > This assertion, as I understand it, denies that novelty can emerge within > the operations of semiosis [ as Signs] – solely within the actual world > and due to causes only within the actual world ie – not linked to > any primal realm of Thirdness. It denies that the first step of this novel > entity is, itself, a Sign [ie a triad made up of O-R-I see definitions of > the Sign in Marty’s 76 definitions] ] even though its mediative Correlate, > the Representamen is not, at this stage, functioning as a general, and > thus, not capable of replication. But is instead, as Peirce wrote: > > > > “A representamen which should have a unique embodiment, incapable of > repetition, would not be a representamen, but a part of the very fact > represented." 5.138.. > > By this I understand that the Representam in these cases would certainly > mediate -as part of that triad - ensuring the actuality of the entity as > a Sign - but would not have the capacity as a general, to enable > replication. It is still a triad and still a Sign, [noting that of the ten > classes of signs, four do not involve 3ns]. This then leads to – how does > novelty and replication of this novelty emerge? > > I should note that numerous actual biological examples of novelty and > speciation in the biological realm have been provided to the list.And > numerous actual societal examples of cognitive novelty have been provided. > In other words- novelty and deviation and diversification of matter and > mind are realities. The question then moves to – are these pre-ordained, > so to speak or self-organized? > > As Peirce pointed out: “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”, these new departures being followed by > unforeseen results which end to fix some of them as habits more than > others” 6.307 > > My comment is that Peirce notes that these departures are random and not > linked to existent logic [ie, that a priori Thirdness potentiality > suggested by JAS] > > Peirce also writes about “a principle of generalization, or tendency to > form habits, which I hold has produced all regularities”. [6.63] As he > outlines in 6.266, ‘when some atoms of the protoplasm have become > partially emancipated from law what happens to them?” He answers with ‘the > tendency to take habits’, which means that they can form new habits of > association, ie, within that representamen, to enable ‘diversification’.. > > And Robert Marty has provided his lattice of five paths, which clearly > shows how a ‘first Sign’, eg a qualisign or sinsign, can emerge, whose > representamen of mediation is not within the generalities of 3ns and thus, > cannot enable replication, but, which gradually adds information which it > transforms to generals [habits] and thus, in the future enables replication > of that type to form a new species or new invention. > > I think these examples show that for Peirce, novelty is a reality within > the actual semiosic operations of the universe and as such, is > self-organized with ‘no purpose or logic other than actualization. > > 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.
