Cathy, yes, Deacon’s “absence” is the absence of existing things, concrete
physical objects or actual events. (This was not clear to me from his first
chapter but does become clear later in the book.) He wouldn’t use the term
“Being” in the way that Peirce does, but he is arguing against the tendency in
biological psychology to reduce all causality to efficient causes, which are
necessarily present as actualities. So he affirms the reality of formal and
final causes, neither of which is present in that sense (the presence of
Secondness, i think Peirce would call it.) Deacon’s universe is not very
Platonic, it’s more Aristotelian.
Jon, yes, “incompleteness” has been on the mathematical agenda since Gödel’s
famous paper, but Deacon’s argument is essentially non-mathematical; he
mentions Gödel only once and briefly, and doesn’t mention people like Rosen at
all. I think Rosen’s idea that a living organism (anticipatory system) is one
that has no largest model is very similar to what Deacon is driving at. But
Deacon would have no use for that approach because he deliberately restricts
himself to physics (whereas Rosen thought that physics was not generic enough
to encompass life). He doesn’t have much use for mathematical complexity theory
either.
I don’t think the main thrust of Deacon’s argument is all that original – it’s
not really different from what Peirce argued, for one thing – what’s original
(in my view anyway) is Deacon’s concepts of orthograde and contragrade change,
and teleodynamics, which allow him to build his argument for the reality of
final causality in purely physical terms (and without appealing to ‘quantum
weirdness’).
Gary F.
} We are but whirlpools in a river of ever-flowing water. We are not stuff that
abides, but patterns that perpetuate themselves. [Norbert Wiener] {
<http://www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm> www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic
studies: Peirce
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Catherine Legg
Sent: March-13-12 10:41 PM
Very rich post, Gary (F), thank you! I've recently been alerted to the
importance of Deacon by Gary (R) and he is now 'on my list'.
On the interesting issue of Deacon's 'Absence' which you raise in the last
paragraph, I wonder whether the Absent is absent from Being or just the actual
world. If the latter, perhaps it is not entirely inaccessible to a Peircean
phaneroscopy fearlessly navigating the Platonic Universe.
Cheers, Cathy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
