Edwina, Jon S, List,
The passage you find puzzling is from Peirce. It can be hard to make out, in
part because the suggestion is so rich as a sort of guiding idea for the
normative sciences of aesthetics, ethics and semioitics, considered as a whole.
There are a number of attempts in the secondary literature to explain what he
is claiming. I recommend Terry Moore's Conduct and Community: A Peircean
Framework for Moral Philosophy, which is a dissertation on the ethics as seen
in the context of his larger normative theory. It is, in my humble estimation,
a particular good starting place for understanding what Peirce seems to be
suggesting about the "relationship between phenomena and ends."
If you don't have access to the dissertation, but would like to take a look, I
can help put you into contact with Terry (he often follows these discussions on
the list), and he can probably provide a link to a digital copy.
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 5:50:36 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Order of Determination
I have no idea what you mean by 'the subject matter of normative science
consists of the relations of phenomena to ends'.
And I disagree that the 'ideal end of semiosis is the development of habits
that would never be confounded by subsequent experience - including, but not
limited to, true beliefs'. This is your personal belief and as I said before,
it aligns with the Hegelian/theistic focus on 'the final perfection' of
synthesis. I don't agree that the formation of such habits is a 'regulative
hope' [in whose mind?]. A universe which is immune to experience is the
antithesis of Peirce's pragmaticism.
I disagree that the habit-taking tendency is the primordial law of mind - and I
don't read 6.24-6 as saying that. When Peirce says that 'matter is effete mind,
inveterate habits becoming physical laws' [6.26] this was to reject Cartesian
dualism of mind and matter with each independent of the other. His rejection of
this independence does not mean that habits are primary.
And I reject your interpretation that the Sign is an entelechy. Again, with the
confusion over the meaning of the term 'Sign' - I don't know whether you are
referring to the irreducible triad which is the Sign of DO-[IO-R-II] or only
the Representamen. Both the triad and the Representamen necessarily operate in
any of the three categorical modes.
On Fri 06/04/18 11:01 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
As I have noted before when making this substitution, Peirce defined logic (in
the broad sense) as semeiotic and beliefs as habits. The subject matter of
normative science consists of the relations of phenomena to ends, and the ideal
end of semiosis is the development of habits that would never be confounded by
subsequent experience--including, but not limited to, true beliefs. Again,
this is a regulative hope, not something that will ever actually be achieved.
Turning to metaphysics, the habit-taking tendency is the primordial law of
mind, from which all physical laws--inveterate habits--are derived (cf. CP
6.24-25; 1891). However, as you rightly point out, freedom and spontaneity
still prevent their complete induration (cf. CP 6.201; 1898). Hence
recognizing that a Sign is an Entelechy (3ns), as Peirce himself explicitly
did, does not at all deny the Reality of Form (1ns) and Matter (2ns); on the
contrary, I see it as an integral aspect of his robust three-Category realism.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky
With regard to the statement by Jon:
"My long-term objective in all of this remains to understand how semeiotic may
be defined as the science of the laws of the stable establishment of habits
(cf. CP 3.429; 1896). That includes the inveterate habits of matter, as well
as the self-controlled habits of Persons."
The actual reference to Peirce is not about semeiotic but about logic: "Logic
may be defined as the science of the laws of the stable establishment of
Semeiosis is actually a 'far-from-equilibrium' or unstable process, functioning
within three, not one, but three modal categories. Only one of them, Thirdness,
refers to habits or stability. The vital, absolutely necessary mode of
Firstness , inserts the capacity to break up, modify, adapt, change, evolve,
those habits. And the equally necessary mode of Secondness locates both
Firstness and Thirdness within individual, diverse, local, interactive,
networking instantiations of both habits and novelty.
To reduce semiosis to only one of the three modal categories is setting up an
idealistic ontology - and this is not, in my view, Peircean semiosis.
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