On Jul 2, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
In any case, I can see I'll have my work cut out=20
to be brief in replying to your notes, since=20
brief though they may be, they are also fairly=20
"dense" in "content". terms, at least if I try to=20
read between the lines..
I would prefer the terms "concise" and "crisp", but, if you insist on the term "dense" I accept your judgment. :-)
You wrote:
My take on the distinctions between Peirce and Whitehead is rather differen=
t.
In early Peirce (1868), the analogy with=20
distance functions and branching was the given=20
basis for distinguishing paths of logic,=20
relation to chemical valence and the more=20
general concept of extension. The later=20
writings of Peirce describing "division" of a=20
sign in natural language is not a crisp way of=20
looking at the concept of extension. (One might=20
substitute for the term "division" such terms as=20
partition, trichotomy, lattice, subtraction,=20
incomplete parts, lack of additivity, and so=20
forth; but I do not see how that would create a=20
coherent concept of relational extension.)
Well, first off, I personally think it is very=20
important that "early" and "late" Peirce's are=20
seen as part and parcel of one and the same=20
philosophical project, that developed (emerged)=20
over a considerable time period, but always with=20
the key notion of synechism ("the tendency to=20
regard everything as continuous") at its base.=20
Kelley Parker's work on Peirce's continuity is a=20
useful point of reference here.
This comment identifies a critical issue. It is not clear to me how relate Peirce's later views to continuity. I do not know the writings of Parker. Clearly, the concept of continuity as well as chemistry was in the early writings. However, in later works, the "flow of semiosis" displaces the relevance to chemical logic; it remains consistent with various aspects of "signal processing" and "Memory Evolutive Systems."
When you write that "The later writings of Peirce=20
describing "division" of a sign in natural=20
language is not a crisp way of looking at the=20
concept of extension", I think I'll have to ask=20
you for a bit more detailed explanation of what=20
you mean by that...
Very simple.
Extension as growth; as increase; as sequence of relations, the later extending the former.
My conjecture is that extension is easy in number/arithmetic,
difficult in chemistry, and very difficult in natural language.
In the example, sign is extended to qualisign, sinsign and legisign. This extension appears to me to include a fair amount of arbitrariness. Fine for a philosophy of belief, not adequate for chemical or biological purposes. It would be helpful if someone could suggest a path that associates these terms with chemical, biological or medical practice.
In late Whitehead, Process and Reality, he gets=20
into bed with set theory and never re-emerges=20
from this highly restrictive view of extension.=20
In modern chemistry, a multitude of=20
possibilities for extension exist . (The flow=20
of passions in a bed are great, but they should=20
not be conflated with the light of reason. :-)
Regarding "early" and "late" with regard to=20
Whitehead, the same considerations as above=20
regarding the recursive, stepwise development of=20
Peirce's architectonic, I think also holds for="">
Whitehead. From the beginning he was a=20
mathematician (and education theorist) more than=20
a philosopher (and in fact, like Peirce, he never=20
"formally" studied philosophy apart from his own=20
personal readings of other philosophers' work),=20
but process and reality is built round ideas=20
developed in his many other philosophical=20
writings, such as "Adventures of Ideas", "Science=20
and the Modern World" -- in my opinion a good=20
starting point for people who don't know=20
Whitehead, and who want to get a grasp on the=20
main rationale behind the "philosophy of=20
organism" that is much more fully fleshed out in=20
"Process and Reality".
I concur with your narrative. In this case, I read Whitehead's earlier works in historical order, more or less. Thus, I was stunned by the notion of extension in a late chapter of "Process and Reality". In this case, the view of extension simply excludes the ordinary logic of chemical valence!
Apropos the flow of passions, in bed or=20
otherwise. it's interesting to read Whitehead=20
precisely because of his particular discursive=20
style, which has often been compared to that of=20
Plato.
His discussions of the notions of subjective and=20
objective ideas/forms (or "eternal objects", in=20
W's terms) offer an interesting "animation" of=20
the "traditional" Plationic forms which meshes=20
quite well with Peirce's notion of matter as=20
"effete mind", and his claim that "The=20
evolutionary process is [=8A] not a mere evolution=20
of the existing universe, but rather a process by=20
which the very Platonic forms themselves have=20
become, or are becoming developed" (CP 6.194)
As I see it, rather than "getting into bed with=20
set theory" and never re-emerging, I'd say that W=20
creatively tries to develop and qualify in a=20
quite precise and systematic way, and by means of=20
a particularly dynamic conception of relational=20
topological geometry, his argument that there=20
exists a latent potential for continuity and=20
creative growth in the cosmos that allows for="">
continuous transmssion of what he refers to as=20
objective and subjective "feeling" between actual=20
occasions/ events/ entities in nature, also those=20
not immediately temporally or spatially present.
Yes. But it i exactly this approach to the continuous that excludes the discrete logic of chemistry and biological codes. My concern is with the discrete logic of extension as it manifests itself in chemical and biological structures. Topology is not the answer to these questions; it merely obfuscates the known one:one correspondence relations known to exist. The genetic code is expressed in terms of base pair sequences, not continuous functions.
One might say that modern chemistry has in=20
richer view of extension - valence is richer=20
than -1,2,3- and it is richer than set theory=20
by using irregularity as a basis of calculation.
Peirce I think would argue that -1,2,3- would be=20
just fine for the potential development of any=20
number of more complex relations you may like to=20
mention. -1,2- would be too simple, too=20
restrictive, and -1,2,3,4- would be unnecessarily=20
redundant...
But, my point is that if four different groups are necessary to construct an optical isomer of carbon such that it distinguishes between the logic of polarized light, then it is mathematically impossible to achieve this logical distinction with any notion of 'threeness". Optical isomers are not a question of trichotomies and triadicies. They are questions of tetrachotomies and tetraadicies. I would welcome arguments to the otherwise.
Also, the propensity of process philosophers to=20
neglect the concept of inheritance of properties=20
in time restricts the potential correspondence=20
between process philosophy and scientific=20
philosophy.
A modern philosophy of chemistry must cope with=20
numbers of relations grater than three and also=20
recognize that islands of stability exist within=20
the torrential seas of change.
I think notions such as continuity and unlimited=20
semiosis, growth of concrete reasonablness in=20
Peirce, and others such as extensive connection,=20
prehension, concrescence/satisfaction in=20
Whitehead offer a set of useful metaphorical/=20
conceptual tools that we may (if we choose) "play=20
with" and try to use creatively to envision and=20
systematically describe/ try to understand better=20
some of the underlying, contingent processes that=20
form a basis for physical phenmomena such as the=20
inheritence of properties in time,
The logic of chemistry is based on exact accounting methods.
Modern medicine presupposes that health is dynamic contingent process.
I find both P and W stimulating to read
So do I.
and=20
especially if we try to see constructive=20
interconnections between them, since their=20
respective ways of thinking both in their own=20
ways urge us to conceive of/ describe physical=20
(and conceptual) relations as essentially=20
processual and as temporally and spatially=20
"continuous" in character, and both are concerned=20
to maintain open lines and a degree of continuity=20
between "material" and "mental" phenomeno.
This allows us, too, to consider at any kind of=20
physical/ material "entity" as inherently=20
transient, but also at the same time as a=20
relatively "stable" occasion/ event in an >
creative process that allows for the growth and=20
development of "effete mind"/ concrete=20
rerasonableness... Here I think there is a lot of=20
"cheerful hope" for developing wider, more open=20
and more dynamic understandings of "our own"=20
experiences of reality...
I must respectively submit that the intermingling of physical philosophy with chemical philosophy is a disaster for both. Physical theory is generally based on continuous functions in time and space. "Matter" is represented as a generic universal, as mass, as a variable.
Chemistry is based on the table of elements with one list for ordering the sequence of elements and multiple lists for placing similar valences together. The non-electrical properties of chemical systems may often be treated as continuous variables. Chemical logic generates relations among chemical species, not mathematical operations on continuous variables.
I hope this contributes to background for my remarks.
