Actually, the physics Nobel Laureate whom I heard say this - both to me and to
an audience - was Brian Josephson. There are others in 'the sciences' - in
physics, chemistry and of course, in biology - who are very interested in
Peirce's work, particularly in that incredible notion of the basic form: the
triad - as well as the Three Categories - and the concept of triadic
networking. That is, the Peircean framework enables complexity: it provides
both stability and adaptation and then adds to this dynamics, the outline of
informational networking.
Prigogine's dissipative structures in non-equilibrium [or far-from-equilibrium]
is a great example of a triadic Sign operating within all three modes...a
format that enables both current individual existentiality as well as long term
common habit-formation as well as dissipative openness [eg, the rhematic
indexical legisign].
The Peircean semiosis doesn't view these triads as singular but as
networked...so, each triad is linked with another and another and each is
reformatting the other...a constant, seething dynamic process. With both
habit-formations evolving and novel chance forms appearing...
Peirce provides a powerful, incredible infrastructure.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking
Edwina wrote: And I recall a Nobel Laureate in physics, in a conference,
declaring that Peircean semiotics was a vital analytic framework for physics.
This might very well have been Ilya Prigogine, the Belgian physical chemist
who won the Nobel prize for his work in complex systems, irreversibility and
what, perhaps, he's become best known for, dissipative structures in
thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium.
Several years ago I briefly discussed how he was influenced by Peirce as, for
example, he discussed it in Order Out of Chaos (1984) which he co-authored with
Isabel Stengers (Jaime Nubiola commented on the list that Prigogine was
probably introduced to Peirce by Stengers who, apparently, knew his work well).
“Peirce’s [work]. . . appears to be a pioneering step towards the
understanding of the pluralism involved in physical laws." Prigogine
Best,
Gary R
.
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Again, I am presuming that all of you know of the work being done in
biosemiotics - so, frankly, using Peircean analysis in these areas - biology,
physico-chemistry, AI, computers..isn't new! There are journals; there are
books; there are conferences devoted to these issues. Google 'biosemiotics' on
your own.
And I recall a Nobel Laureate in physics, in a conference, declaring that
Peircean semiotics was a vital analytic framework for physics.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Ben Novak ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking
Dear Ben, list:
I think yours is a wonderful idea.
To think Peirce could impose himself in all disciplines.
If we take the disciplines to be embedded in the three Universes, then it
should be matter of course that it would. Isn’t that what ancestry of
pragmatism means? A river of pragmatism…a link in a venerable chain?
So, what’s stopping us? Sure there are examples but they're not of the
kind that I would say is terribly convincing. That is, I don't know of serious
scientists that go around thinking what they do is Peircean before they call it
physics or biology or embryology or computer science or AI or ...
That is, I could open my mouth about the nuances of his work but what
quantum physicist would take me seriously when I know zip about what they’re
saying and vice versa? So much work...reputations at stake...crazy...It would
appear good integration will require a miracle…or at least something divine to
which we can all affix our attention.
In any case, count me a believer,
Jerry R
PS. As for an actual step toward integrating the different ideas, here
is a suggestion from On a New List of Categories. We should correct his
terminology but the structure appears correct:
BEING
Quality (Reference to a Ground),
Relation (Reference to a Correlate),
Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),
SUBSTANCE
one two three…Substance, Being, Truth.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Ben - you probably know that Peircean concepts are vigorously explored
in biology [biosemiotics], physics and chemistry [pansemiosis]...as well as in
AI and computers. Peirce, in my view, is exactly right for these areas; after
all, his own references to the biological and physico-chemical realm support
this.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Novak
To: Jerry Rhee
Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; Helmut Raulien ; Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking
Dear List:
I would like to come back into this discussion, but first let me
thank Jon for his concise correction of my multitudinous errors. Second, let me
thank you all for the liveliness of this discussion.
But back to Jon, I ended my first post on this discussion with: "I
am not sure I am expressing this well, but my point is concerned with adding
being (and beings) into the mix as necessary to understand existence and
reality." You did not seem to respond to this, so let me raise it again, since
the term being has raised its head in recent posts.
I am fascinated by the discussion of what Peirce means relative to
the variety of terms discussed, and I appreciate that the purpose of Peirce-L
is to focus on Peirce's thought. But if often seems that we are in a semantic
bubble, focusing almost exclusively on Peirce's terms, leading me to wonder how
and whether his thought can be brought into conversation with other thinkers,
and other thought on similar subjects.
Specifically, I am interested in how Peirce's thought relates to the
concepts of being and beings, especially as these relate to Heidegger or
postmodernists, or even Thomists. I often think of Peirce in relation to
Heidegger with the idea that Heidegger would be a lot clearer if he had known
of Peirce's thought.
Second, I wonder whether Peirce's thought and terms would at all help
in the issues and problem of ontology in quantum physics. Here I am
specifically referring to Peter J. Lewis, Quantum Ontology:
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ontology-Guide-Metaphysics-Mechanics/dp/0190469811
or Bernard d'Espaçant, On Quantum Physics and Philosophy
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691119643/ref=pd_cp_0_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9ZY3BJJES420C4R4AKEK
or the much earlier but easier to read and follow Quantum Reality, by
Nick Herbert
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-Beyond-New-Physics/dp/0385235690/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473543476&sr=1-
I realize, and appreciate that PeirceL is to discuss Peirce. Bujt it
would seem that his concepts might be easier to understand (and perhaps easier
to discuss) if they were related to concepts and problems in other sciences
and disciplines.
In simple terms, are Peirce's ideas of firstness, secondness, and
thirdness; reality and existence related to, usable in, or translatable into
problems discussed elsewhere?
It would seem that this is particularly relevant to Peirce's theory
of thinking--or at least to our quest to discover it.
Ben N.
Ben Novak
5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
Telephone: (814) 808-5702
"All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts
themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart
will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes
may remain—because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message
will have gone." Oswald Spengler
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello, list!
What Edwina said is so sensible as to be Greek.
There is a one over many in semiosis. That is, one has to cut and
situate oneself in a horizon while discussing one two three…One.
For example, there is also a fourth and a fifth that are assumed
but don’t get talked about; a fourth and fifth that is not Fourthness or
Fifthness, even though there is a distinct quality about them, which makes it
deserving of a –ness moniker.
See how confusing that is? Here is something to help:
“First is the conception of being or existing independent of
anything else.”~Peirce
“All these are called substance because they are not predicated of
a subject but everything else is predicated of them…
Therefore, as in syllogisms, substance is the starting-point of
everything.” ~Aristotle
(Could he be talking about CP 5.189? But Aristotle wrote 2400
years ago and Peirce only a century…but Peirce read Aristotle and was immensely
influenced by him. But where does he say “This idea, viz., CP 5.189, was
inspired by the philosopher, viz., Aristotle!”)
____
“Second is the conception of being relative to, the conception of
reaction with, something else.
Third is the conception of mediation, whereby a first and second
are brought into relation.” ~Peirce
So, instead of “quality, relation, representation”, why not try
“quality, representation, relation”? There is not a ‘wrong’ here but a
‘better’.
It is more an issue of how one attends to the matter. This mind
that situates is always present and simply assumed. The mind can be called
utterer, interpreter or commens or in fifth, sub specie aeternitatis. The
perspective of the eternal is an objective mind. But in what way can a mind be
objective?
_______
“The origin of things, considered not as leading to anything, but
in itself, contains the idea of First, the end of things that of Second, the
process mediating between them that of Third.” ~Peirce
“Again (3) of quanta that have a beginning and a middle and an end,
those to which the position does not make a difference are called totals, and
those to which it does, wholes.”
So, what is it, a thing invented by Peirce with a beginning a
middle and end with features of syllogism, which can be used as a tool to unite
the parts as One?
one, two, three…C, A, B…beginning, end, middle…CP 5.189…One…
“‘A whole’ means (1) that from which is absent none of the parts of
which it is said to be naturally a whole, and (2) that which so contains the
things it contains that they form a unity; and this in two senses-either as
being each severally one single thing, or as making up the unity between them.”
_________
Peirce touches on the theme of Edwina’s comment in the following:
“A philosophy which emphasizes the idea of the One is generally a
dualistic philosophy in which the conception of Second receives exaggerated
attention; for this One (though of course involving the idea of First) is
always the other of a manifold which is not one. The idea of the Many, because
variety is arbitrariness and arbitrariness is repudiation of any Secondness,
has for its principal component the conception of First.”
Finally, Peirce closes a section on Hegel (a triadic philosophy in
that Hegel states the syllogism, God/Son/Spirit, although it ought to be
Father/Son/Spirit…God) with:
“In psychology Feeling is First, Sense of reaction Second, General
conception Third, or mediation. In biology, the idea of arbitrary sporting is
First, heredity is Second, the process whereby the accidental characters become
fixed is Third. Chance is First, Law is Second, the tendency to take habits is
Third. Mind is First, Matter is Second, Evolution is Third. [from CP 6.31-4]”
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/peirce3.htm
Here, you can see that one, two, three is simply a heuristic (he
even admits in one of the Ransdell manuscripts that it is an exercise of which
he wished to divest himself but couldn’t because it proved to him to be correct
after years of testing).
There is no right or wrong here but always a better. What we argue
over is whether it is a best because there might even be a best. But where is
the proof for a community?
“That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a
very important proposition. It sweeps away, at once, various vague and
erroneous conceptions of proof.”
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Helmut, list
Your comments point to exactly the problem with mechanical
reductionism, i.e., where one tries to reduce a dynamic process [the semiosic
process] which is always triadic, into 'bit parts' that somehow mechanically
interact. That's the opposite of the Peircean semiosis.
That's why I don't consider that thought, as a semiosic process,
is confined to Thirdness. After all, Peirce analyzed THREE modes of thinking,
of reasoning - and such could not be the case if all three were similar; i.e.,
just operating in Thirdness. Instead, their vitality and strength derives from
their use of Firstness and Secondness as well as Thirdness. Thirdness is the
vital process of developing generalities, habits-of-formation. But, I read
Peirce as considering that Thought as a generative force requires all three
categorical modes.
I use the term of Sign [capital S] to refer to the triad, the
classes. After all, nothing exists except within a triadic interaction! That
includes a molecule, a cell, an insect, a word.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Helmut Raulien
To: jonalanschm...@gmail.com
Cc: Jerry Rhee ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:51 AM
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking
Jon, Gary, Edwina,..., list,
I find it interesting, that Peirce later replaced "Quality,
relation, representation" with "Quality, reaction, mediation". Might it be
better to say "mediation is always thirdness" instead of "mediation is only
thirdness"? "Only" I find confusing, because I think "only" only fits
firstness, as thirdness is based on, and contains, first- and secondness too
(and secondness firstness). What also is confusing again and again is, that on
one hand a sign is always thirdness, because it is a mediation, but on the
other hand eg. a qualisign somehow is not thirdness. I think we have to
distinguish between the sign, and the sign class (or think of better terms for
this distinction). The sign as looked at as some entity in itself is thirdness,
mediation. But the sign as looked as what kind of meaning it conveys or
generates, in which way it mediates (of which class it is) is only complete
thirdness, if it is an argument. Or maybe it would be better to say that the
distinction is between the function of the sign and its class: the function of
the sign is to mediate, to bring a perception to mind, to generate thought.
That is thirdness. But if there is no thought generated except eg. that the
perception is conveyed to the mind, then this generation is not as complete as
it is in other signs, it is degenerate. So the function "mediation" is
thirdness, but there is not much action of the mind, thought, thirdness,
achieved by this mediation, when the sign is not of the proper class for that.
Can you say what I mean more simply?
Best,
Helmut
10. September 2016 um 04:36 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry, List:
I was asking Edwina, because I am trying to get a better handle
on where it is that our interpretations of Peirce diverge. But since you posed
a direct, coherent question ... I had passages like this one in mind.
CSP: Why should there be three principles of reasoning, and
what have they to do with one another? This question, which was connected with
other parts of my schedule of philosophical inquiry that need not be detailed,
now came to the front. Even without Kant's categories, the recurrence of
triads in logic was quite marked, and must be the croppings out of some
fundamental conceptions. I now undertook to ascertain what the conceptions
were. This search resulted in what I call my categories. I then named them
Quality, Relation, and Representation. But I was not then aware that
undecomposable relations may necessarily require more subjects than two; for
this reason Reaction is a better term. Moreover, I did not then know enough
about language to see that to attempt to make the word representation serve for
an idea so much more general than any it habitually carried, was injudicious.
The word mediation would be better. Quality, reaction, and mediation will do.
But for scientific terms, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, are to be
preferred as being entirely new words without any false associations whatever.
(CP 4.3; 1898)
I suppose that we could reformulate the three bullets in
accordance with Peirce's comments here.
a.. All thought takes place by means of signs.
b.. Every sign mediates between an object and an
interpretant.
c.. Mediation is (only) Thirdness.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Jerry Rhee
<jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon, list:
This is the bizarre one:
a.. Representation is (only) Thirdness.
Where, exactly, does Peirce state this?
Give me the name, date and serial number!
:)
Best,
Jerry R
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on
"Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not
to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu 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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu 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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
