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 gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: 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 think. 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. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .