Edwina wrote: How can evolution and adaptation take place without the immediacy of a brute interaction of Secondness and the spontaneity of Firstness?
That, in a nutshell (that is, as greatly simplified) is the question Peirce put to Hegel's philosophy. Best, Gary [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 Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* 'Edwina Taborsky' <[email protected]> ; 'Jerry LR Chandler' > <[email protected]> ; 'Peirce-L' <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > > *To:* 'Edwina Taborsky' <[email protected]> ; 'Jerry LR Chandler' > <[email protected]> ; 'Peirce-L' <[email protected]> > > *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] <[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 <[email protected]> > > *To:* 'Jerry LR Chandler' <[email protected]> ; 'Peirce-L' > <[email protected]> > > *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] > <[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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
