BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - see my responses below:
 On Sat 07/04/18  1:06 PM , Gary Richmond
 Edwina, Jon, list,
 1] Gary R: Edwina, all the things that you question, disagree, or
reject here will be found in Peirce. He himself, for example, says
that 'the subject matter of normative science consists of the
relations of phenomena to ends'.
 EDWINA: I'm not questioning their being 'found' in Peirce. One can
cherry pick a zillion quotes from Peirce. I'm questioning their
pragmatic use within an analysis.

         2] Gary R: Similarly, 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' is a decidedly Peircean
notion concerning an asymptotic tendency of scientific inquiry
towards the Truth such that Truth == Reality. It is not Hegelian
whatsoever in my view as Reality in Peirce's sense itself involves
all three categories, not just 3ns.

        EDWINA: Here, I question the view that 'the development of habits
that would never be confounded by subsequent experience - including
but not limited to, true beliefs'.  I'm not questioning this
statement. I'm questioning the view that a 'final state' exists,
where habits are no longer open to the realities of 1ns and 2ns. Let
me explain. I can, for example, analyze the biological and chemical
nature of a lion - such that I can determine the essentially true
nature of it as a biological species.  And - this analysis would not
be 'confounded by subsequent experience' of the lion species. It's a
'scientific truth'.

        BUT - just because I have analyzed the scientifically valid nature
of this species - does NOT mean that its habits are closed to
adaptation and evolution. They could - and probably will - evolve and
change. So, habit formation and truth are not the same thing.


         3] Gary R: Similarly Peirce uses the phrase "regulative hope" in
consideration of just those habits of thought and action which,
through hetero- and homo-correction (science as critical commonsense
writ large) tend toward a belief wholly congruent with Reality,
whatever you, I, Jon, or any given community of inquirers might

        EDWINA: Agree.


        4] Gary R: It is Peirce who says that the habit-taking tendency is
the primordial law of mind, I believe first in the essay "The Law of
Mind" (1892). Habits, 3ns, in the involutional sense I recently
commented on as it appears in "The Logic of Mathematics," involve the
other two categories quasi-necessarily. 

        EDWINA:  My view is that habit-taking is ONE of the primordial laws
of Mind . Indeed, the formation of habits is vital. Peirce himself
said that without it - mass would at one instant weigh a pound and at
the next instant, weigh a ton' [memory quote]. However, I don't see
that habits 'involve' the other two categories quasi-necessarily. 
That is, Thirdness does not, in its own nature, require 1ns or 2ns,
but semiosis certainly, absolutely, does - for a universe made up
only of habits is obviously dead - in the sense that all life has
ended, all individuation has ended, and the universe is one huge
crystal [see 6.33]. Peirce himself saw this only as pure theoretical
speculation in the infinite [i.e., never] future.

         So, semiosis is, in my view, above all a dynamic process of
Mind-becoming-Matter. There is no need for the 'sop to Cerberus of
bringing in a human observer. Therefore, it is not a communication
system, not an 'interpretation  system' but an actual pragmatic
system of how matter exists in our universe. It exists as Mind -
which functions within all three primordial modes: 1ns, 2ns, 3ns -
and I see all of them as equal and basic primordial forces. 


        4] Gary R: Finally, it is Peirce who calls the Sign an entelechy. 

        EDWINA; Again, we have to each of us clarify what we mean by 'Sign'.
I mean, by Sign, the full irreducible triad of DO-[IO-R-II]. The
reason I insist on the relation of DO with this triad is because no
Sign can exist in isolation; it is always within some interaction. 

        However, others mean by Sign - what I refer to only as the
Repesentamen, the node of mediation. 

        So- I think one has to be very specific about this meaning. 

        As for 'entelechy' - Peirce may have used the term, but what did he
mean by it? After all, his comparison of it with Thirdness does not
mean that there is an a priori agenda of Mind-forming-Matter. As he
says, Thirdness, as habits, providing predictive constraints, 'is
essentially of a general nature, and cannot ever be completely
fulfilled' 1.26. Again, "this mode of being which consists, mind my
word, if you please, the mode of being which consists in the fact
that future facts of Secondness will take on a determinate general
character, I call a Thirdness" 1.26.

        Thirdness is general and not specific; it is not 'a priori' and with
a  specific potential/purpose [which is what is suggested in some uses
of the term 'entelechy']  but, as general -its articulation within an
individual form of matter -  is open to local stimuli. That is,  with
the reality of both Secondness, which is the local individual
'articulation' of Mind-as-Matter [and thus, susceptible to local
stimuli] and the reality of Firstness, which is the reality of chance
deviations from the norm - then, this general character of habits, is
open to adaptation and change. There is no predetermined future
identity of the Universe or of how Mind-as-Matter will function. 

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to