Helmut, list I think a problem you are having is that you are trapped in your definitions.
Thought? When Peirce says that ’thought appears in the work of bees, of crystals - you, differing from Peirce, define ’thought’ as requiring a separate brain. But Peirce rejects this - and instead, provides examples and analysis where a nervous system, as in protoplasm, exhibit ’the phenomena of mind’ 7.364. And Mind has a universal mode of action; namely by final causation” 1.269…and ’the tendency of all things to take habits’ 6.101 - a phenomenon which is found in all of matter, including the physical realm. So- there is no need for a separate brain for this process of ‘reasooning’, or ’thinking’ and leading to the formation of habits..takes place You have set up a requirement for ‘representative memory’ or developed and stored images, [aka a form of consciousness] within a separate physiological entity in order for Thought’ or ‘Mind to operate. But there is no evidence for such a requirement. Read 7.364 for Peirce’s rejection of this. Habit? You seem to denigrate it to some kind of incorrect emotional opinion - [ dogma] ..which you define as propositions, if I understand you. But Peirce doesn’t use the term the way you do- his definition is that Habit is thirdness or normative patterns of organization - and is a development within a system of ’normative behaviour’ 5.297…” a habit is a general rule operative within the organism” W 4.249 and develops within a system by induction. See also 1.390. Beliefs? I don’t think that the outline of ‘fixation of belief ‘ has anything to do with the development of formative habits within the natural world. It is, however a good analysis of societal beliefs! The universe, as I understand Peirce, is a vast process of Mind functioning as Matter with the only agenda - to prevent the dissipation of energy and a return to the original Nothing. Edwina > On Dec 10, 2025, at 9:40 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 9. Dezember 2025 um 19:52 > "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > 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 > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Helmut >> >> Social 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. >> >> Edwina >> On Dec 8, 2025, at 1:28 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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, Helmut >> 8. Dezember 2025 um 18:43 "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Helmut >> >> 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. >> >> Edwina >> On Dec 8, 2025, at 12:24 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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, Helmut >> 6. Dezember 2025 um 17:51 >> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> Helmut, list >> >> 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. >> >> Edwina >> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Truth and Reality (was Sign Tokens and Sign Types) >> Date: December 5, 2025 at 9:05:25 PM EST >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Reply-To: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>,[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM > PEIRCE-L <mailto:[email protected]> . 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.
