Helmut: It is not so much that habit itself is fundamental, but that the tendency to take habits--i.e., generalization and continuity--is primordial.
CSP: I make use of chance chiefly to make room for a principle of generalization, or tendency to form habits, which I hold has produced all regularities. (CP 6.63) CSP: This habit is a generalizing tendency, and as such a generalization, and as such a general, and as such a continuum or continuity. It must have its origin in the original continuity which is inherent in potentiality. Continuity, as generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general. (CP 6.204) Regards, Jon On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > Ok, so, again, a term problem. so, if habit is not exclusively a mental > fact, I might agree. Like in cybernetics, there are catastrophic and > counter-regulative circles, and when first a catastrophic circle starts to > work, but then is inhibited by a regulative circle, but in the end the > catastrophical start has permanently increased something (established it), > this is habit? Ok, it makes sense to me, I agree, habit may be inanimate. > It just is hard to see it as something fundamental, because you can analyse > it, take it apart into smaller concepts, like I did above. But a system is > said to be more than its parts, and maybe fundamentality does not have to > mean atomtized part(icle). > Best, > Helmut > 24. Januar 2017 um 22:18 Uhr > "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > Keep in mind that for Peirce, "habit" is a much broader term than how we > typically use it in ordinary conversation. Every law of nature is a habit; > so indeed, stones, crystals, and sand dunes exhibit habits just as much as > people, pea plants, and dogs. Peirce wrote that "habit is by no means > exclusively a mental fact ... The stream of water that wears a bed for > itself is forming a habit" (CP 5.492); that "matter is effete mind, > inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.25); that he held "matter > to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102); that "what > we call matter is not completely dead, but is merely mind hidebound with > habits" (CP 6.158); and that "dead matter would be merely the final result > of the complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and > the brute irrationality of effort to complete death" (CP 6.201). > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jon, list, >> OK, Peirce said so, but I have problems with seeing "habit" as something >> fundamental, because to me it seems like a quite complex affair. I even had >> thought, that habit-taking requires a memory, which is a solid with >> changeable spots, and in- and output connections, like a brain or a memory >> chip in a computer. In the realm of organisms, habit obviously does not >> require a brain, as biologists have found out lately, that a pea plant can >> be conditioned like a Pavlovian dog. But inanimate things like stones, >> crystals or sand dunes? I do not see that they habitize, I think they just >> obey to circumstance conditions (In case of a crystal the crystal itself >> belongs to its own circumstance conditions, the bigger it is, the faster it >> grows, but that has nothing to do with habit, just with its increasing >> exposed surface). So i just thought to replace or explain "habit" in case >> of inanimate, with "viability due to tautology/truth". Convince me >> otherwise. >> Best, >> helmut >> >> 24. Januar 2017 um 21:27 Uhr >> "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> wote: >> Helmut, List: >> >> Rather than mathematics, tautology, or truth, Peirce identified the >> psychical law--the Law of Mind, generalization, the habit-taking >> tendency--as the primordial law, from which all physical laws are "derived >> and special" (CP 6.24). In "A Guess at the Riddle" (CP 1.412; 1887-1888), >> he wrote that the "second flash" came about "by the principle of >> habit"--which means that the latter must have already been in place. In >> fact, in an early draft of "A Neglected Argument" (R 842; 1908), Peirce >> acknowledged that "there must have been some original tendency to take >> habits which did not arise according to my hypothesis," crediting this >> correction to Professor Ogden Rood. If the tendency to take habits was >> truly "original," then 3ns must have preceded 1ns and 2ns in some >> sense--presumably more logical than temporal, per Clark's comments. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Edwina, list, >>> If there are limitless possibilities in the beginning, and then evolve >>> things, matter, laws, due to habit-taking, one might ask, on which grounds >>> and basis does this selection takes place? One might say, that for instance >>> mathematics is the basis for physics. But what is mathematics? A Platonian >>> idea? No, it is an elaboration of tautology, I guess. If somebody would >>> claim that "1+1=2" is only true in this universe, but in another universe >>> "1+1=3", he would be wrong, because "2" is defined as "1+1". So maybe the >>> one and only law that selects possibilities due to their viability, and >>> thus is responsible for habits, is the law of truth, which is nothing but >>> accordance to tautology. So maybe it is not even a law. But it is the only >>> A-Priori: Truth is tautology, or it is what it is. Maybe even the >>> categorical imperative is based on this not-law of identity. Maybe >>> identity, tautology, truth are (universal) thirdness concepts which are >>> there in the instant, secondness (something) is there? "Something", evolved >>> secondness, sticks out of the Tohuvabohu by adressing itself "I am like I >>> am, and remain so", permanent for some time in contrast to the brew of >>> possibilities, which are not permanent, but just a turbulent mess. What I >>> want to say, is, I agree with you that no God is necessary. But the >>> self-explaining concept of Truth is, which is very simple: Tautology. But >>> do religions say that God is not simple, or do they rather talk about >>> almightiness, so may we just say that it is ok. to call Truth/Tautology, >>> which obviously is almighty, and perhaps the only almighty thing/law, >>> "God"? Ok, I guess that would be too simple and silly. It was just a >>> "gedankenexperiment" of mine, having been gotten carried away somehow. >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
