Stephen - I am well read in all of Peirce's writings. That wasn't, therefore, what I was asking; I was asking what YOU meant by it. Habit, as a generalization and collation of 'ideas' or 'codes' or 'modes of organization' is Peirce's definition. But you refer to the 'association of habits' (not ideas)....and therefore, I asked you what you meant by this.
Since you refer only to habit (Thirdness) and the 'association of habits' - and don't refer to causality from brute interaction of discrete particles (Secondness) or the spontaneous generation of a novel entity (Firstness)...then, I consider that these modes of generation of interactions - are not within your axiomatic model. How can evolution and adaptation take place without the immediacy of a brute interaction of Secondness and the spontaneity of Firstness? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Jerry LR Chandler' ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:32 PM Subject: RE: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Edwina >"I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'association of habits'. A habit is the continuity of a system of organization - it can be an organized set of actions, an organized set of matter. Then, habits (plural) can associate or network with other habits....and not network with yet other habits." Peirce appreciated the central importance of habit and association in cognitive processes, and this is evident throughout his writings. The essence of his view is captured in Peirce (1931-1966): 'There is a law in this succession of ideas. We may roughly say it is the law of habit. It is the great "Law of Association of Ideas," - the one law of all psychical action.' (CP 7.388) Habit and association are covered more specifically as aspects of a general law of mind, in Book III, Philosophy of Mind (CP 7.388-7.523) (chapters 2 and 3 are on association and habit respectively), in Peirce (1931-1966) >"Your outline seems to rule out both Secondness and Firstness; i.e., direct brute interaction and spontaneous chance." I do not understand on what basis you infer this. >"This also means that you rule of evolution and adaptation, for, without these two modes - neither can take place." Definitely not. While I do not include natural selection in an axiomatic context (others might have justification for doing so, but this is not my choice), I definitely do accept that it plays a significant part in the rough-and-tumble of adaptation. Natural selection is one mechanism among several. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 15 October 2015 7:23 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Jerry LR Chandler'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Stephen - I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'association of habits'. A habit is the continuity of a system of organization - it can be an organized set of actions, an organized set of matter. Then, habits (plural) can associate or network with other habits....and not network with yet other habits. Your outline seems to rule out both Secondness and Firstness; i.e., direct brute interaction and spontaneous chance. This also means that you rule of evolution and adaptation, for, without these two modes - neither can take place. As I said - I totally reject the reductionist 'theory' of Dawkin's 'memes'; culture is far more complex than a set-of-beliefs. I agree that life is inevitable, not accidental, based on the laws of thermodynamics (complexity and entropy). Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Jerry LR Chandler' ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:06 PM Subject: RE: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Edwina, I formulated my "law of association of habits" in conjunction with "the desire to be," before I heard of Peirce. It was in the interests of publishing my thoughts that I researched and stumbled upon Peirce (hence my paper published in Semiotica 2001), to discover considerable alignment between his three categories and my habits, association and "desire to be" (the "desire to be" relates to the constellation of motivations, desires, fears, thrills, etc that relate to the things that matter). An axiomatic framework can only ever be a best guess... even Isaac Newton's framework is a best guess that thus far, beyond the controversies of SGR, has been shown to work very well. The list of assumptions that I relied on to guide my thinking, taken from a somewhat waffly list that I put together a couple of years ago, was along the following lines (updated since then, for a more informed readership): 1) The law of association of habits [title of my article that I got published in Semiotica in 2001] provides the same sort of generality for cognitive science that Isaac Newton provided for the physical sciences in his laws of motion. Moreover, it fits in perfectly with Peirce's philosophy of Pragmatism (as in, usefulness - defining the things that matter); 2) Perhaps the law of association of habits relates also to matter, as per Peirce's famous reference to matter as "mind hidebound in habit"; 3) Our existence within cultures - and the fact that cultures can be sustained over time - can be understood from the perspective of the law of association of habits. For example - memes as habits, and imitation as a subset of associative learning. Associative learning provides the mechanism by which memes (habits) are transmitted. Imitation is one of the ways in which we choose what to associate; 4) Persistence across time is the deal-breaker. No matter what accidental complexity might manifest according to the laws of chance, the fact that life persists across time, with all the thermodynamic forces (entropy) acting against it, suggests that there is something more robust going on than the mechanics of dumb luck; 5) The law of association of habits is fully generalizable to every entity that lives. This enables us to formulate a more general semiotics that brings us to biosemiotics, based in the ideas of Jakob von Uexküll; 6) Existence continues to be strange and unfathomable, no matter what your theoretical base might be. The emphasis of the law of association of habits is on that which is observed. It strives to provide as consistent, logical, rational and coherent a theory as is possible, without having to contrive thermodynamically impossible scenarios, such as computers to process genetic code. There are gaps in our knowledge that may never be resolved, because it is impossible to conduct experimental controls. For example, morphic resonance may be so fundamental and basic that there is no way of isolating a control for it, because in order to do so, we would need to go to another universe; 7) Within the context of the laws of thermodynamics (complexity, entropy), life is inevitable, not accidental; 8) The law of association of habits is entropically friendly... imitation, for example, obviates the need to process complex data from genetic blueprints. By contrast, any suggestion that "computers" can occur in nature by way of natural selection fails to recognize such complexity as, thermodynamically, extremely unlikely; 9) Things that are inexplicable to our current way of thinking must have logical, rational explanations. The law of association of habits might fit in neatly with such theoretical ideas as morphic resonance or non-locality (quantum physics); 10) The law of association of habits is about making choices from ecosystems. For humans, that ecosystem is Culture. And with Culture playing a crucial role in personal identity, it follows that it is from Culture that humans learn how to be; 11) From the law of association of habits, we infer that all living entities have to "know how to be." This includes knowing how to be, in all its forms, such as imitation and pragmatism; 12) The law of association of habits is a process view of life; 13) The law of association of habits provides a basis for interpreting "nothingness", space and "infinity". It provides a theoretical framework that accounts for subjectivity, and the idea that a living entity's definitions depend on the bodily tools that it uses in order to make choices from its ecosystem. For example, there is no way that nothingness can be defined in absolute terms. IMPORTANT NOTE: A list of axioms is not a list of truths. It is an attempt to formulate a best guess. A list of axioms is comparable to an organisation's mission statement, because it provides a vision for what we are trying to accomplish. Ultimately, these questions may never be falsifiable, because we may never establish a control universe in a laboratory setting where we can test for the inclusion or exclusion of parameters like entanglement. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 15 October 2015 3:01 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Jerry LR Chandler'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Stephen - the gene-centric belief is hardly the sole ownership of Richard Dawkins; it's been a basic theme of classical neoDarwinism - and is he really 'traversing the globe and preaching'? There are other scientific explorations of a less deterministic and reductionist analysis, one that involves the view that the biological process is a broad informational dynamics - and the gene is merely the 'holder' of an adaptive change. However, you have not provided us, with a clear outline of your 'axiomatic framework'. I'm not sure what you mean by an 'Occidental paradigm' nor your statement that Peirce did not consider that non-human entities had consciousness. I suggest that this is not correct - he most certainly considered that, eg, mammals had consciousness. You say that you are not a Peirce scholar and again, I'm not sure what you mean by that - have you read his work with any thoroughness? And, after all, biosemiotics is based on the Peircean analytic framework...Therefore, what is it exactly that you are rejecting within the Peircean framework? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek To: 'Jerry LR Chandler' ; 'Peirce-L' Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:15 AM Subject: RE: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Jerry, List Richard Dawkins is traversing the globe preaching his gospel. It is the "life because genes because natural selection" narrative. And he is preaching his gospel in the absence of any axiomatic framework that hangs together (natural selection is a mechanism, not an axiomatic principle). He has no axiomatic framework. We do. The possible implications of the Peirce-biosemiotics paradigm are far-reaching... from politics, to religion, to sexuality, to biology and the mind sciences and even to physics and the thermodynamics of complexity. Yet, the indications are that The Establishment's genocentrism-based narrative has not entirely released its grip in our forums. Peirce was not God. His semiotics was framed from a fairly anthropocentric perspective, given that his thinking originates from an Occidental paradigm that did not attribute consciousness to non-human entities. The introduction of biosemiotics into the Peircean narrative changes all that. So to get bogged down on the semantics of the original Peirce is not even what he himself would have wanted. I think, were he alive today, Peirce would welcome the expansion of his semiotics into a more general paradigm for the life sciences. And that means that he himself would be open to recontextualising some of his assumptions. sj From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 11:10 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: Stephen Jarosek Subject: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: such as the need for an axiomatic framework, or a review of important principles. Interdisciplinary thinking requires such openness to ideas, as none of us can be experts on everything. Yes, the need for openness in thinking broadly is readily apparent. It would very helpful to your readers if you would clarify what you are seeking to communicate in either "an axiomatic framework" in the sense of the breadth of such a framework, or " a review of important principles". Is your concern about a general logic for interdisciplinary thinking? Or, about a semantic framework that encompasses a particular philosophy of logic or metaphysics or epistemology? These questions are phrased in such a manner as to give you full license tell the readers how such an open space can be constructed with minimal constraints. Cheers Jerry -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
