Helmut, list I think one should differentiate between a ’theory’ and an ‘ideology’. Marxism, Nazism, and religions and..are ideologies. Am ideology is a set of beliefs - which you either accept or do not; they are not subject to empirical or objective proof. A theory is an explanation of an objective actuality and is fallible and subject to empirical evidence. For example - the theory of special relativity.
1+1=2 is neither a theory nor a habit but an empirical observation. Logic is a rational analysis - eg, the fallacies of the syllogism; the various informal fallacies..But physics requires empirical evidence. Again, Peirce’s use of the term ‘habit’ refers to the development and operation of laws of organization of matter [ as in chemistry , physics, biology] and also, within societal norms of behaviour [ as in the development of language]. Edwina > On Dec 15, 2025, at 4:18 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > Theories may be dangerous. Look for example, what marxism/leninism has > caused. Or antisemitism, nazism, or religions. If you say, laws are hardened > habits, things are too, then it seems, as if laws are like things, disposable > of. Wat is a law anyway? The laws of logic are quasi-tautological. One plus > one is two, because two is defined as one plus one. There is no way, one plus > one could in former times have been e.,g. "1.9". Physicists are trying to > find a GUT (great unifying theory), by which the natural laws are derived > from the laws of logic. Following Peircean tychism is saying, this search is > futile. But then please define the border between logic and physics. This > whole "habit"-scheme would lead back to medieval time, it is like "Ether": > Water waves need water, so light waves need some "ether". Why not say, that > diseases are caused by miasma. My phaneroscopic sentience is clearly telling > me, that the concept of generalized "habit" as a natural principle is > anti-scientific, and anti-enlightment. And based on pure speculation, like a > religion. Religions are dangerous too, see above. > > Best, Helmut > 15. Dezember 2025 um 15:14 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > List , Jeff, Gary F, Gary R, Ivar ... > > Jeff’s analysis, in my view, is excellent- and is saying what I was trying to > outline in my thought-fantasy. > Jeff writes: > "From a Peircean perspective, what matters is not whether the rock has a > mindlike interior, but whether the more basic levels of reality involve (i) > qualitative possibilities (Firstness), (ii) constraints/compulsions or “brute > suchness” (Secondness), and (iii) the formation of stable regularities > (Thirdness as habit/law). If one takes a continuous field ontology seriously, > then the primitives are not little billiard balls, but loci of qualitative > character (charge, spin, etc.) standing in relations of mutual > susceptibility—what Peirce calls the peculiar relation of affectability. And > if one further takes seriously the idea that law is not merely “written into” > the cosmos from the outset but becomes increasingly definite—then the growth > of regularity begins to look like the growth of a kind of memory: not memory > as personal recollection, but memory as the persistence of constraints, the > consolidation of tendencies, the sedimentation of habits across time—all > involving the growth and flow of information. > On that way of putting it, the sharper question becomes something like: Is a > primordial field of potentiality the kind of thing to which Peirce’s > “whatever is First is ipso facto sentient” could intelligibly apply? That is: > are the qualitative aspects and couplings of the most basic reality better > thought of as utterly mindless “dead matter,” or as something whose most > primitive mode is closer, in kind and not just in degree, > tofeeling/possibility—with “dead matter” emerging as the highly constrained > limit where habit has hardened and the range of qualitative “free play” has > been drastically narrowed?” > I think the above outline of the path from 1ns through 2ns to 3ns [ and > reverse!] is excellent. > I think one has to be very careful , however, about the meaning of > ‘primordial field of potentiality’ [let’s call this domain A]. . This does > not mean determinism, ie, that the ‘forms’ of Existence’ are primordial’. The > fact remains, that Firstness is chance and freedom ..and the actualities > [call them B] are not the result of a direct linear action from A to B. > Edwina > > On Dec 14, 2025, at 5:58 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > From a Peircean perspective, what matters is not whether the rock has a > mindlike interior, but whether the more basic levels of reality involve (i) > qualitative possibilities (Firstness), (ii) constraints/compulsions or “brute > suchness” (Secondness), and (iii) the formation of stable regularities > (Thirdness as habit/law). If one takes a continuous field ontology seriously, > then the primitives are not little billiard balls, but loci of qualitative > character (charge, spin, etc.) standing in relations of mutual > susceptibility—what Peirce calls the peculiar relation of affectability. And > if one further takes seriously the idea that law is not merely “written into” > the cosmos from the outset but becomes increasingly definite—then the growth > of regularity begins to look like the growth of a kind of memory: not memory > as personal recollection, but memory as the persistence of constraints, the > consolidation of tendencies, the sedimentation of habits across time—all > involving the growth and flow of information. > On that way of putting it, the sharper question becomes something like: Is a > primordial field of potentiality the kind of thing to which Peirce’s > “whatever is First is ipso facto sentient” could intelligibly apply? That is: > are the qualitative aspects and couplings of the most basic reality better > thought of as utterly mindless “dead matter,” or as something whose most > primitive mode is closer, in kind and not just in degree, > tofeeling/possibility—with “dead matter” emerging as the highly constrained > limit where habit has hardened and the range of qualitative “free play” has > been drastically narrowed? > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► 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.
