Edwina, Jon, List,
I think, that "thought appears in bees, crystals..." does not say, who is the thinker. It certainly is not the crystal, that thinks. "to think" I understand as argumentative reasoning, aboutness, which requires, as I assume, a representing memory in a solid-state network such as a brain. To call this "habit", to me feels like a degrading. DNA is not a network, but a one-dimensional string, and, accordingly, species evolution after Darwin is a try-and-error affair of propositions, not arguments. For this, I think, the term "habit" suits. Culture is complex, storage of information also is replication and repetition of arguments (theories), propositions (memes, dogmas), and rhemes (fashion...). The success of an argument in a culture I can not see as a habit, but as a reasonable conviction. Regarding Peirce´s four methods of fixating belief, I would say, scientific method is not habit formation, but conviction. Authority method is not habit, but force. Tenacity is habit. Apriori is somehow given.
Inanimate nature: I don´t know, what there is the equivalent to a solid-state network. Maybe the universe is quantum-computing, and there are strings and networks of quantum-entanglements, superpositions, and so on, things I don´t understand, that make the memory of the universe´s quasi-mind. Or there is a God, I don´t know.
Best, Helmut
List:
There seems to be persistent confusion here about a few items.
First, the notion of "infinite inquiry." No one is suggesting that the truth can only be attained as the actual result of infinite inquiry. As Peirce himself says in the long paragraph from which Ben and I have both quoted other portions, "upon innumerable questions, we have already reached the final opinion" (CP 8.43, 1885). The point is that the truth is whatever would be the result of infinite inquiry, regardless of whether we already have recognized it as such or ever will recognize it as such. This is because the method of science is intrinsically self-correcting in the long run--unlike the alternative methods of tenacity, authority, and a priori--which is why it is normative for genuine inquiry.
Second, the relationship between actuality and possibility. By definition, nothing can become actual unless it is possible; even chance deviations must be possible, or they would not be capable of actualization. Novelty is (obviously) not the actualization of an impossibility; it is the very first actualization, within our existing universe, of a real possibility.
Third, the implications of tychism. As defined by Peirce, it is "the doctrine that absolute chance is a factor of the universe," with the caveat that "when I speak of chance, I only employ a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity" (CP 6.201, 1898). This does not render "the pursuit of truth as futile," it just means that our measurements are not exact and our knowledge is not certain. The physical laws that we discover are habits that have become "inveterate" but are still not utterly exceptionless, because they are products of evolution and still evolving--"at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law" (CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
HelmutSocial Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism or evolution. It’s not a natural or logical expansion of biological evolution but - is a mental aberration - confined to a few who make political and economic use of it for their own agendas.I’ve no idea what you mean by cosmological Darwinism. It is a FACT that the laws of physics and chemistry are more or less [to my knowledge] set and were set early in the emergence of the universe, and as such, form the basis for the biological realm - whose laws of organization are not ’set’ but are flexible and adaptive. This is why we see such an enormous diversity of species/Types.The function? Simple - as I’ve said - to prevent the entropy of energy and the return to the original Nothing.Evolution, according to Darwin, is not just about species, but about adaptation within species - leading to an enormous diversity of Types, ie, of subtypes, subspecies ... as well as totally new and novel species.No-one is talking about social Darwinism here! I know of no-one who believes in such a thing!I disagree with you - the laws of ‘inanimate nature’ are most certainly ‘habits’ or 3ns. And I disagree with your insistence on requiring a brain for the emergence of habits. I’ve quoted the following from Peirce so many times - It’s strange that you don’ recall, but here goes again..4.551. “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world; and one cannot more deny that it is really there, than that the colours, the shapes, etc., of objects are really there” …OK! Got it? As Peirce wrote - thought/Mind/Thirdness ... functions within crystals, within the physical realm! No need for a brain! And yes, Peirce does explain all nature within the three categories of 1ns, 2ns and 3ns.And I think - according to the non-Peircean rules of this List - I’m not allowed to post anymore today.EdwinaOn Dec 8, 2025, at 1:28 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwina, List,I relate tychism to metsphysics, because natural laws belong to metaphysics, but tychism claims, that they are due to evolution, meaning, they do not belong to metaphysics, but to physics, as they are not laws, but parameters. Evolution, that is darwinism, has later been expanded to social darwinism, and look, what damage social darwinism has done in history, and still does (more and more just now). So I am against expanding darwinism to cosmological darwinism, as this would be the final expansion, including all, also social life. Evolution according to Darwin is a matter of species, nothing else. Sociality, culture, is based on needs and wills of individuals and collectives, not on blind habit-taking. Inanimate nature is based on unchanging laws, which are not habits at all. Habits can only form themselves by a solid-state network such as a brain (Hebbian learning) or a computer chip. Explaining all nature with a generalized "habit"-concept is a dead end, is my opinion. Sorry for this heresy.Best, HelmutHelmut8. Dezember 2025 um 18:43 "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>I don’t understand how you relate lychastic evolution to metaphysics! Check out the meaning of tychasm 6.302..And in physics,chemistry.. - where evolution and adaptation does function..you will find that the habits of organization [3ns] have become fixed with the result that physical forms rarely if ever change - ie- the format of electron and neutron and chemical forms rarely if ever mutate to form a nw chemical! The reason for this is obvious- to prevent entropic dissipation of energy. If the universe’s base was made up of constantly changing patterns of organization [3ns] then, the within this chaos the more complex forms of matter, which preserve energy more strongly than the less complex - would never emerge.But in the biological realm, the flexibility of habit is obvious - and new forms/habits of organization do emerge without prior precedent..but..are operative within the more stable laws of physics and chemistry. These serve the purpose of strengthening the preservation of energy in eh universe.EdwinaOn Dec 8, 2025, at 12:24 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwina, List,what did you mean by "chance deviations"? I have not read the respective texts by Peirce about tychism, I guess tychism claims, that certain, not all, parts of metaphysics are due to evolution. I cannot see, how e.g. the laws of logic might be due to evolutional change, because they are more or less self-corrobating, that is "tautological" (as I wrote) in a broader sense, so I guess, tychism sees not them, but natural laws and constants due to evolutionary change. Anyway- if metaphysics is stripped of some before reliable-seeming aspects, and laws and constants are no longer regarded for laws and constants, but for parameters due to evolutional change, this makes any philosophy more complicated, because, the more changing parameters you have, the more chaotical gets the system of thought, and the more futile it seems to apply a calculation or estimation. Ok, one might say, that laws and constants change very slowly, so it is ok to regard them for being constant, but still there is a psychological aspect of somehow hovering futility of truth-inquiry. I guess, this psychological aspect is the reason for my reluctance against tychism. And the fact, that nobody ever has observed a change of e.g. light velocity, gravitation, electron resting mass, the number Pi, things like that. This is where my suspicion comes from, that tychism is an unjustified abduction from values that do change to all values in general. I admit, that I feel kind of sick from similar unjustified abductions, from Nietzsche (against all values) to nowadays rightwing libertarianism reminding me of Stirnerian anarcho-egocentrism. So I am quite sensitive about this topic, and, though very muchly treasuring Peirce, am not refraining from suspecting, that in this singular case (of tychism) he was wrong.Best, HelmutHelmut, list6. Dezember 2025 um 17:51"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>wrote:The problem with ‘infinite inquiry’ and the concept of ’truth’ is that the former is..infinite..and the latter is…finite…These are two different worlds, so to speak. The infinite is purely intellectual [ pure Thirdness] a utopian cloud which will always find more angels on a pinhead, , and the finite includes all three categories - and particularly Secondness - which focuses on ‘hic et nunc’ realities. .After all- if you want to find out the truth of a virus- then, the inquiry should be finite, because the truth of that virus is also finite. It is THAT virus and made up of THIS and THAT…etc.And I think one has to be careful with the concept of ’truth’. It doesn’t mean some kind of a priori Form that we lesser mortals struggle for centuries to uncover. And again - if we declare that the search for truth is’infinite’ then, by definition, such a search is futile.Truth is a posteriori - that is, the identity of an entity [let’s say a new form of insect] is formed with the emergence of this entity..and its ’truth’ or operative nature, is examined within its realities. That’s pragmatism.I don’t see how accepting tychism as an active force in evolution and adaptation, ie, accepting chance deviations, ‘blocks the way of inquiry’. To assert that, suggests that you believe that Truth is a priori and that we cannot accept anything due to chance. But- After all- according to Peirce [ and of course, modern science], such chance deviations [ without any hint or connection to ’the possible or potential']..are the basis of evolution.EdwinaFrom: [email protected]Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Truth and Reality (was Sign Tokens and Sign Types)Date: December 5, 2025 at 9:05:25 PM ESTReply-To: [email protected],[email protected]
Ben, List,I don´t think, that quantity and quality compete with each other easily. The number of questions asked is a quantity, that can not be reckoned against the capacity for answering them, because this capacity is not the sum of the respective capacities regarding each single question. This is so, because capacity to answer questions is only a little dependent on knowledge about the topics about which the questions are asked, and a lot more dependent on general ability of logical thinking. Which is a quality. I don´t see, that in all cases infinite inquiry would approach truth. What kind of truth anyway? Truth about the past is dependent on complete and reliable documentation, like a police investigation based on evidence. This is not given. Truth about the present depends on stable, unchanging parameters like laws and constants, to be gained knowledge of, because the process of gaining knowledge takes time, and if parameters meanwhile are changing, you again have the said problem of incomplete documentation (of what parameters had been like before). That is why I think, that belief in tychism blocks the way of inquiry, by exposing the pursue of truth as futile. In this case you only have the unchanging, quasi-tautological laws of pure logic for reference, but can´t apply them for anything. Not helpful. so I think, because I hope so, that tychism is a not-justified abduction from observed worldly changes.Best, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
