Helmut, lists,
I certainly didn't find your suggestion silly at all. Here follow a few
idle thoughts on this matter (I've copied your original note to the members
of the Peirce list).
Yes, thirdness is relation, betweenness, mediation, relation, etc. holding
even between dyads, and Peirce interestingly makes exploring the connection
between the mind and the body a principal task of one of the branches of
nomological psychics which "analyzes the laws of the connection of body and
mind" (CP 7.375).
And it's an ancient idea, isn't it, really? One finds it in yin/yang theory
where Lao-Tsu finds the opposition to be actually creative, indeed
producing the entire cosmos. A similar notion of this creativity of
opposites appears in Ancient Egyptian (Kemetic) cosmology expressed as male
and female Great Powers (Neters) copulating to create a third Neter, their
child, and given such names as Nefertum ("Accomplishing beautiful
things" in Memphis).
And, it's interesting to note, that Peirce argues that despite its positing
an absolute duality between body and soul that even Cartesianism had "a
single element of philosophical strength, its recognition of real reaction
between ego and non-ego" (CP 6.580). It's that reaction--that
relation--which may be creative, that can become creative philosophical
thought, for example. It sounds dyadic at first blush, but proves not to
merely that.
Yet mediation in any of its forms is not always easily discernible. For
example, in discussing a certain kind of graph Peirce writes "It is not
surprising that the idea of thirdness, or mediation, should be scarcely
discernible when the representative character of the diagram is left out of
account" (CP 3.423).
And, apparently, it's easy to leave "the representative character" out in
many apparent dualities.
Best,
Gary R
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Gary, List,
> a kind of maybe too sillyfying suggestion: Isnt thirdness relations? So it
> would be the relations between psycical and physical science. Or, to
> generalize, there are no dyads, because any two parts of any suggested dyad
> have some relation with each other, some common structure or common Umwelt.
> If they dont, these two parts are contingent. But can contingent entities /
> events form a dyad?
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]>
>
> Jeff, Ben, lists,
>
> The reason why Peirce includes only two branches of the special sciences
> in his classification of the sciences may simply be that there are some
> situations where there naturally are only dyads, and one sees this, for
> example, in places in mathematics and physics.
>
> The quotation Ben gave which *perhaps* hints at where one *might *look
> for a possible third special science doesn't suggest at all anything
> presently capable of *scientific *study: "Astrology, magic, ghosts,
> prophecies." So a third branch seems to me highly unlikely.
>
> One should note, however, that the classifications from 1902 on (the
> "perennial classification" as Kent calls it) do divide each of the two
> branches of the special sciences into *three *sub-branches, namely the
> descriptive, classificatory, and nomonological. So trichotomies do occur
> *within* the branches of the two special sciences
>
> Bes
>
> Gary R
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ben, Lists,
>>
>> Given the principles that are being used to guide the formation of the
>> classification of the sciences, why is the division between the physical
>> and the physical sciences a dichotomy and not a trichotomy? If this is a
>> natural divisions between kinds of special sciences, then there should be
>> an explanation. What is it?
>>
>> --Jeff
>>
>> Jeff Downard
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Philosophy
>> NAU
>> (o) 523-8354
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Benjamin Udell [[email protected]]
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:32 AM
>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7705] Peirce's classifications -
>> WAS Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 6
>>
>> Dear Tommi, lists,
>>
>> Regarding Peirce's uncertainty about the ordering of physical vs.
>> psychical sciences, I should provide a quote because he doesn't express his
>> uncertainty in the other sources that I provided. In his 1904 draft
>> intellectual autobiography (L 107 and MS 914, in Ketner 2009
>> http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783050047331/9783050047331.35/9783050047331.35.xml
>> ), Peirce wrote:
>>
>> [....] Idioscopy is occupied with the discovery and examination of
>> phenomena, aided by mathematics and philosophy. It is extremely doubtful
>> which of its two wings should be placed first. [....] [End quote]
>>
>> I seem to remember Peirce's saying somewhere that it might not make much
>> difference, but I haven't been able to find the quote. Anyway, in the 1902
>> Carnegie application, Peirce put psychical sciences before physical
>> sciences
>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-02.htm<
>> http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-02.htm>
>> , then in the 1903 "Syllabus" classification he put the physical sciences
>> first
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20111105121054/http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/peirce/cl_o_sci_03.htm
>> <
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20111105121054/http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebatke/peirce/cl_o_sci_03.htm>
>> .
>>
>> He did not show such uncertainty in putting religious, or psychical,
>> metaphysics before physical metaphysics, although he did note in the 1903
>> classification that the two fields at that time regarded each other with
>> "supreme contempt."
>>
>> While, as you said, Peirce sought to classify the sciences as researches
>> pursued by groups of actual living people, he did find his kind of
>> trichotomy popping up often enough, particularly when the divisions that he
>> found in their actual activity turned out to be more logical than
>> genealogical. The physical-psychical distinction is the most obvious case
>> where he refuses to impose trichotomy where he doesn't find it in the
>> facts. The physical-psychical distinction is, for him, the distinction
>> between efficient causation and final causation. In his physical
>> metaphysics, he argues for three operative principles in the cosmos -
>> spontaneity a.k.a. absolute chance (tyche), which is First, mechanical
>> necessity (anance), which is Second, and creative love (agape), which is
>> Third, and three corresponding modes of evolution - tychasm, anancasm, and
>> agapasm. But he finds corresponding divisions of the special sciences
>> corresponding only to anance and agape. In his refinement (in Kaina S
>> toicheia) of Aristotle's four causes, he basically sees the efficient
>> and material causes as, respectively, external and internal Seconds, and
>> the final and formal causes as, respectively, external and internal Thirds.
>> Tyche, chance, does not appear there; Aristotle himself likewise did not
>> include chance (spontaneity) among the four causes, and, in a sense,
>> absolute chance is not a cause - the sense that what happens by spontaneity
>> happens without cause, or without definite cause at least. Still, if there
>> were a third division of idioscopy, one for tyche and tychasm, what would
>> it be? The following quote is suggestive and a bit surprising. "The First
>> Rule of Logic" Lecture 1 of 1898:
>>
>> [End of CP 5.586]
>> The instincts connected with the need of nutrition have furnished all
>> animals with some virtual knowledge of space and of force, and made them
>> applied physicists. The instincts connected with sexual reproduction have
>> furnished all animals at all like ourselves with some virtual comprehension
>> of the minds of other animals of their kind, so that they are applied
>> psychists. Now not only our accomplished science, but even our scientific
>> questions have been pretty exclusively limited to the development of those
>> two branches of natural knowledge. There may for aught we know be a
>> thousand other kinds of relationship which have as much to do with
>> connecting phenomena and leading from one to another, as dynamical and
>> social relationships have. Astrology, magic, ghosts, prophecies, serve as
>> suggestions of what such relationships might be.
>> [End quote]
>>
>> Note that this was well after his 1887 "Criticism on Phantasms of the
>> Living" in which he criticized the paranormalist work of Gurney, Myers, and
>> Podmore.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>>
>> On 12/8/2014 5:09 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote:
>>
>> Dear Howard, Stan, Ben, Garys and others
>>
>> For me, the understanding of the reasons and principles of Peirce's
>> classification of sciences has been the major key that has organized
>> Peirce's philosophy as more understandable than just confusing.
>>
>> First, to Stan, the hierarchy, physics - chemistry - biology - sociology,
>> is Comte's one, but from him Peirce adopted the principle of ordering, not
>> the order itself. As Ben already noted, physical sciences (physics,
>> chemistry, biology) and psychical (e.g. sociology) are not ordered by
>> Peirce linearly but they form two branches of special sciences.
>> Secondly, I am not sure whether Peirce's hierarchy is a subsumption
>> hierarchy, namely, though the principle of ordering is according to
>> abstractness of the objects of inquiry, what are classified are individual
>> inquiries that consitute the disciplines (i.e. sciences are not the
>> collections of theories or doctrines), so perhaps the hierarchy should
>> rather be seen as a control hierarchy instead?
>>
>> Then to Howard, although it may seem to be, I would say that Peirce's
>> classification of sciences does not give any foundational hierarchy, or at
>> least it should not interpreted as such - the thorough-going
>> anti-foundationalism is one of the major basis of criticism against
>> Cartesian, classical empiricist, Kantian, Hegelian, and classical
>> positivist (e.g. Comte, Spencer, Mach) thinking. As far as I can see, for
>> Peirce (as for other classical pragmatists too) no logical or metaphysical
>> (nor phaneroscopical) foundation for a science is needed - successful
>> inquiries in any special sciences can be made (and in fact are made)
>> relying on scientists intuitive and culturally inherited logica utens and
>> metaphysics (perhaps we could talk about metaphysica utens as well). But if
>> the results of an inquiry are not expected or do not increase our knowledge
>> enough, the reason may be in inaccurate basic metaphysics (too rich or too
>> limited) or in some logical fallacy in the making of the inqu
>> iry as well as in the specific theory, observations, and experiments
>> peculiar to that inquiry. As a summary I would see special sciences to be
>> mainly meta-level dependent on Peirce's Philosophical sciences, i.e. making
>> of an inquiry is a logical (normative) process, that mere psychological
>> descriptions (or speculations about the brain processes behind) cannot
>> sufficiently describe.
>>
>> Moreover, Peirce emphasized also that his classification of sciences is
>> not meant to be a logical hierarchy, but the description of sciences at
>> their current state and therefore it is historically changing - Peirce
>> valued both Hegel's Encyclopedie and Comte's as approximately correct at
>> their time but but terribly outdated about at the turn of the century - it
>> would be expectable that some parts of Peirce's classifiacation are
>> similarly outdated in our days, e.g. when it comes to subclasses of
>> mathematics and of psychical sciences (espec. the place of introspective
>> psychology).
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Tommi
>>
>> At 20:59 12/7/2014, Howard Pattee wrote:
>>
>> SS: If we understand the meaning of the Spencer-Comte-Peirce hierarchy (a
>> subsumptive hierarchy)
>> {physics {chemistry {biology {sociology}}}} I think it is impossible to
>> be unpersuaded by it!
>>
>> HP: I was not talking about subsumptive hierarchies, but the Peircean
>> claim that logic/semiotics is "higher" than science. I think this means
>> that you should begin all your models with logic/semiotics. It claims that
>> logic is the foundational on which all other models, like science, must
>> rest.
>>
>> Penrose's three-world model says that there is no such logical hierarchy.
>> Rather there are three irreducible foundations with an illogical
>> nontransitivity. The brain is a subset of the physical world. The world of
>> abstract mathematical forms is a subset of the brain's models. The physical
>> world is a subset of the world of mathematical models.
>>
>> http://unlocktao.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/penrose-worlds2.png <
>> http://unlocktao.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/penrose-worlds2.png>
>>
>> Logic cannot be the foundation of an illogical model. (Neither can
>> classical logic be the foundation of Quantum mechanics.)
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>> "Cousins to the ameba that we are, how could we know for certain?"
>> - Donald T. Campbell
>> *******************************************************************
>> University of Tampere
>> School of Social Sciences and Humanities - Philosophy
>> Tommi Vehkavaara
>> FI-33014 University of Tampere
>> Finland
>> Phone: +358-50-3186122 (work), +358-45-2056109 (home)
>> e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> homepage: http://people.uta.fi/~attove<http://people.uta.fi/%7Eattove>
>> https://uta-fi.academia.edu/TommiVehkavaara
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
