Mike, list
Thanks for this post - and for your previous post on scientific and
natural language -
Yes, there are many hypotheses about the emergence of life; thermal
vents being a strong suggestion but who knows which will be 'the
infallible final' - but the key is, as you note, that life operates
within a triadic action. That is, the habits-of-organization,
Thirdness, move into the individual adtuality rather than functioning
aa an external law- and - operate as an action of mediation.
By this I mean that, for example, chemical molecules are 'organized
forms of matter', but the storage of the laws of their organization
are not carried within the molecule. Instead, the molecule
'manifests' as an individual articulation of the laws which all
molecules in that community express. This format provides enormous
stability to the physical-chemical realm, for deviant molecules,
with different organizational patterns, would rarely develop.
But the biological realm is completely different. There, Thirdness
or the laws of organization move into and are stored within each
articulation. This permits a self-organized Thirdness, open to chance
differences, slight deviations from the norm according to not merely
chance but to the effects of the local environment. These differences
can be reproduced and become another species. Therefore, the
biological realm is the opposite of stability; it enables enormous
diversity and complexity.
This type of analysis, understanding Mind-as-Matter, a basic
Peircean concept, and the role of the three categories and the
triadic semiosic process, seems to me, to be a powerful analytic tool
for understanding both the emergence of life and how adaptation and
evolution takes place. Using Peircean semiosis, I think that it shows
that there is more "Mind' going on than is found in mechanical
Neo-Darwinism.
Edwina
On Fri 10/08/18 11:07 AM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent:
List,
I think we can expand Stephen's suggestion, to which I think
I agree, that triadic action is involved Peirce's pragmatic
maxim.
I think we can understand the supreme importance of triadic
action by questioning how life began from inanimate matter.
There are many hypotheses about how life emerged from the 'soup'
or thermal vents or others. In all cases, though, the common
postulate is that some event (such as a spark or spontaneous
change in chirality or ???) occurs, but in the presence of the
right amino acids or protein precursors. The dyadic action of
the initial event (say a lightening strike) needed some form of
requisite environment (interpretant) in order for the action of
'create life' to occur. This action and its relations can be
investigated by dyadic means, but cannot be explained by them.
Our creation and use of symbols requires the same triadic
action. Peirce notes many times that symbols without an
interpretant are mere scribbles, discernible, but meaningless.
When we communicate with natural language, we are able to do
so in part because context informs our interpretation. I
submit this, as well, is a form of triadic action.
All signs, evolution, and semiosis depend on triadic action.
My guess is that one of reasons for Peirce's animus to
Descartes was due to the confining lens of dyadic action.
Mike
-----------------------------
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 .
