Helmut
As Peirce noted, often enough, you don't need a brain for the
function of Mind. I think I've quoted this from Peirce about 100
times: "Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears
in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical
world"4.551
I'd say the function of habits or Thirdness [which we can also call
Mind or rationality] is to introduce the organization of matter such
that it can, first, exist in its single instantiations [molecule,
cell, insect, rabbit, tree, society] for longer than a nanosecond.
That is, the habits provide an infrastructure both to enable the
existence of matter - and to enable its continuity over time. Without
such organization of matter into a form - entropy as a basic reality
of physics would dissipate the matter in that nanosecond. The
universe would revert to: not merely chaos but..nothing.
And second, such habits permit continuity of type, such that the
earth's instantiations can continue as that molecule of oxygen, that
cell, that insect...over time and - into the future. This continuity
enables productive interactions [such that the planet develops
species that can make use of that oxygen to live]...and so on.
Stability introduces continuity of type and enables productive
networking.
Why is there Secondness? Thirdness as a habit-of-organization,
doesn't 'exist' per se. It only 'exists' if we can call it that in
the form of the habits of organization. It does this within
particular instantiations of matter, ie, within that molecule, within
that cell, that insect, that society. Secondness is the mode of
organization into discrete particular instances.
Why is there Firstness? This action is aligned with the natural
entropy or dissipation of both an instantiation and a habit. It
enables change, adaptation - and permits the expansion and change of
interaction, network, the development of complex systems.
I'd agree that the universe works like a brain/Mind.
Edwina
On Sat 27/06/20 6:35 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
List, I have problems with this kind of cosmology. On one hand it
is astounding, that Peirce´s cosmology, like his whole philosophy,
seems to have anticipated many aspects of modern hypotheses (e.g. the
hypothesis that there will be a GUT), and scientific insights. On the
other hand it seems to me like what I would call "explainism". In the
beginning there is a "why"- question: Why are there laws? This
question is then answered with a "because"- answer, which contains
unexplained concepts too: Habit and mind. But next there are not
asked more "why"- questions such as "Why is there habit?", or "Why is
there mind?", but habit and mind are just naturalized by presenting
these concepts as functions of the three categories. These three
categories now do not have to be questioned why they are there, as
they are purely logical and mathematical entities, and clear
commonsensal axioms. Though this whole argument seems consistent, I
still have an uneasy feeling about the move presenting habit and mind
as functions of the categories. That is, because one might argue, that
habits are only existing if there is a mind, and a mind is only
existing if there is a brain. Ok, it is possible to say, that the
universe works like a brain too (pantheism), or that there is an
external brain or quasi-brain (theism). But the whole inquiry stops
at the same point as it had in the middle age and in the antique:
With religion or something like it. I am not against both, personally
I prefer pantheism over theism, but I think it is better to admit that
there is a point where explanation has come to an end, and not to say
that habit and mind are completely explained now with the categories.
Because this would be a blockade of inquiry. Admitting not having
explained habit and mind on the other hand would motivate us to
inquire on: How do both work, what different kinds of habit and mind
are there in nature, and so on. Best, Helmut Gesendet:
Samstag, 27. Juni 2020 um 04:04 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
An: "Peirce-L"
, "Gary Richmond"
Betreff: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The
Pragmatic Trivium)
Gary - I'm puzzled. Who suggested that the three categories are
not always operative - in the meantime? I don't see that either Auke
or myself made such a suggestion.
What I was referring to, was Peirce's cosmological outline [6.207-]
and Peirce says nothing about 'ideal limits'. Instead - his outline
refers, not to the 'ideal' but to the emergence of the categories and
matter/mind from 'Nothing'.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 8:49 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent: Jon, Auke, Edwina, Jon wrote: . . . according to Peirce
neither the absolutely indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the
absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is actual. Instead, these
are ideal limits that correspond to the infinite past and the
infinite future, respectively. In the meantime, all three categories
are always operative.
I have sometime wondered, considering all the "interpretations" of
Peirce's thought that, if anything he thought and wrote might be
agreed upon by all Peirceans that it would be this: that until the
end of that time which might have any meaning for our human race --
or for that matter, any sentient race which might consider such
matters -- that "all three categories are always operative." Thanks
for putting it so starkly, Jon. Best, Gary
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:12 PM Jon Alan
Schmidt wrote: Auke, Edwina, List: Just to clarify, according to
Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor
the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is actual. Instead,
these are ideal limits that correspond to the infinite past and the
infinite future, respectively. In the meantime, all three categories
are always operative. CSP: We look back toward a point in the
infinitely distant past when there was no law but mere indeterminacy;
we look forward to a point in the infinitely distant future when there
will be no indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at
any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some
tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future
there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277,
1887-8) CSP: The state of things in the infinite past is chaos,
tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of
regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the
nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and
absence of all spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a
state of things in which there is some absolute spontaneity counter
to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which is constantly
on the increase owing to the growth of habit. (CP 8.317, 1891) In
other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe is
such that it is always becoming more determinate in accordance with
Gary Richmond's vector [1] of process (1ns→3ns→2ns). Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we
can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the
second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop
habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of
Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to
reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells].
Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be
a final state of pure habits.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen [email protected]
sent:
Edwina,
With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the
opinion that we can only reasonably discuss it afterwards as to its
true nature.
I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
religious expressions. I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.
What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:
We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological
evolution, that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws)
and diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves,
laws and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was
originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to
arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).
It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach.
best,
Auke
Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke, list
Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process.
My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.
But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness. My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness. However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close...." But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen [email protected]
sent:
John,
A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [4]
A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God.
In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:
1. The quality of the artwork in itself
2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings
3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other in any case
study.
best,
Auke
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject,
and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [5] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
