LocalI would think that instinct is related to two categories. Not one but two. It is related to Firstness, to the internal free will-to-exist and to network and explore. Existence itself functions within the rigid boundaries, the constraints of Secondness to produce an individual external existentiality within a morphological form. The form itself, however, is defined by the abstract general rules-of-formation, Thirdness. Instinct is a property of both Firstness and Thirdness.
The question then becomes - if Instinct is an internal property (since it has no boundaries as does the individual thought in Secondness) - then, how aligned is it with another internal category, the category of Thirdness? And with the three modes of Thirdness? Thirdness operates within generalities; Firstness operates within a vague openness. This suggests that instinct is an information process that is without specificity and closure but open to contacts and interactions with other semiosic processes. As Peirce wrote, 1.307 "feeling is not an event... but a state". I'd suggest that instinct is not conscious knowledge, i.e., existential knowledge - since it operates without Secondness; it operates as a 'subliminal' or internal networking of the general Rules, the generalities of knowledge within Thirdness. So, we get quorum sensing in bacteria, we get other stimuli among plants etc - that 'push' the existential individual units to act within their specific knowledge bases. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Claudio Guerri To: Gary Richmond ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct Gary, List, you are right Gary, but there is still a strange behavior in most of us Peirce-listers... we read and study Peirce, but then we write and understand was is written in a strict 'positivist' way. Since everything is a sign and every sign has to be considered triadic... then of course in "human instinct" there has to be more than ONLY knowledge... because knowledge can not 'exist alone'... I think, without having never studied this subject thoroughly, that instinct is some how related to secondness, to a more (so to say) 'biological' aspect, and though to the "impossible", to "the real" in Lacan, and so on... And by the way, I am also aware that we are not completely aware, or conscious, of all what we 'really' know... and more, besides what we know and what we don't know that we know, there is the unconscious (that also exists), and works, not always, in favor of what we are able to think rationally. All the best Claudio Gary Richmond escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 02:34 p.m.: Claudio, list, Claudio wrote: "I would say that instinct is not related to knowledge, but abduction and habit are. There is no 'good' abduction without knowledge... " I'm not certain that I agree with the first part of this statement, viz., "that instinct is not related to knowledge," but that is a complex issue which would take some considerable work to address adequately (Manuel's snippet and my previous long Peircean quote, as well as the passage below may suggest a path which such an inquiry might take). But I fully agree with the second part of your comment, viz. that "there is no 'good' abduction without knowledge," what Peirce calls "the well-prepared mind" making good guesses leading to, in the following example, correct hypotheses in science (something not dissimilar must surely be the case in art, architecture, etc., I'm sure you'd agree). . . . Yes; it must be confessed that if we knew that the impulse to prefer one hypothesis to another really were analogous to the instincts of birds and wasps, it would be foolish not to give it play, within the bounds of reason; especially since we must entertain some hypothesis, or else forego all further knowledge than that which we have already gained by that very means. But is it a fact that man possesses this magical faculty? Not, I reply, to the extent of guessing right the first time, nor perhaps the second; but that the well-prepared mind has wonderfully soon guessed each secret of nature is historical truth. All the theories of science have been so obtained [emphasis added]. But may they not have come fortuitously, or by some such modification of chance as the Darwinian supposes? I answer that three or four independent methods of computation show that it would be ridiculous to suppose our science to have so come to pass. [. . .] There is a reason, an interpretation, a logic, in the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of logical truth. CP 6.476 Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Claudio Guerri <[email protected]> wrote: ----------------------------- 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 . -- Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo Universidad de Buenos Aires Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270 1427 BUENOS AIRES Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895 Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123 E-mail: [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
