Jon S, List,
What you just wrote ("that the "womb of indeterminacy" is "the original
continuity which is inherent in potentiality," and habit as "a generalizing
tendency" emerges from that primordial continuity") reminded me that
Aristotle's notion of potentiality is more like Peirce's idea of
"wo
Clark, list:
“It seems to me that 1907’s famous MS 318 is pretty key to all this the
more I think about it. That’s partially because he speaks of three
habit-interpretants and changes how he talks of habit somewhat.”
Yes! J
one two three… C A B… utterer interpreter commens…
esthetics ethi
Gary R., List:
I have been tied up all day, and may have more to say later. For now, I
just want to point out what Peirce wrote about continuity, potentiality,
and habit in the last RLT lecture.
CSP: This habit is a generalizing tendency, and as such a generalization,
and as such a general, and
List,
It seems that all of Peirce's manuscripts at Harvard are now viewable
online at a Humboldt University site. Maybe they've put the old
microfiche images online or maybe the images are recently made. Only a
few (Robin Catalogue) MSS numbers seem missing.
https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peirc
On more thing before I leave for the weekend. It seems to me that 1907’s famous
MS 318 is pretty key to all this the more I think about it. That’s partially
because he speaks of three habit-interpretants and changes how he talks of
habit somewhat. Part of the manuscript is in EP 2:398. I didn’t
Edwina, Clark, John S, List,
Clark wrote:
I think Peirce has [two] categories of chance. One is discontinuous whereas
the other is continuous. This ends up being important in various ways.
I see a change, shall we say an evolution, in Peirce's thinking towards a
much greater emphasis on continu
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> 1) You write that 'chance isn't separate from Thirdness'. I think it is.
> Chance/Firstness is a basic modal category; it's not part of Thirdness.
>
> 2) I don't read Peirce's view as Neoplatonism ..i.e., that the first
> principle is
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> I don't see that 'repetition depends on chance'. I think that you are
> ignoring that Thirdness [the action of developing and taking habits] is
> primordial and not a result of another modal category, i.e., Firstness. [I
> think that al
Clark, list -
1) You write that 'chance isn't separate from Thirdness'. I think it
is. Chance/Firstness is a basic modal category; it's not part of
Thirdness.
2) I don't read Peirce's view as Neoplatonism ..i.e., that the
first principle is 'the One'. I see Peirce's first pri
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 1:59 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Clark
>> As John suggested we can see symmetry breaking in Peirce’s terms
>> such that non-fundamental physical laws are the somewhat chance
>> created habits. Habits in matter are thirdness.
>
> Those chance-created habits must be supported
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> "We are brought, then, to this: conformity to law exists only within a
> limited range of events and even there is not perfect, for an element of pure
> spontaneity or lawless originality mingles, or at least must be supposed to
> mingl
Clark, list - but the breaking up of old habits and the development
of new habits are two separate actions. It could conceivably happen
that the old habits might dissipate - and no 'chance' occurrences
took place to enable new habits [that would be entropic ...and I
posit doesn't happen that oft
Edwina, Gary, Clark, list,
ET
I'd say that our primary experience of these natural laws is
indexical, in that we physically connect with the RESULTS of
these laws. Intellectually analyzing them and developing
symbolic constructs - is a secondary step.
I agree with both sentences. And I would
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Gary R - I agree with your comment re 'chance creates habit'. I
don't see how this could happen. Chance enables the development of
different habits.
But habit-taking is primordial. My only difference is that I t
Dear all,
“Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation.”
So what is chance doing, breaking up habits or creating new ones?
Is the habit stable or unstable?
Which habit, the broken up one or the newly created one?
What is the start; a condition of disorder or a condition of
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> But, as I see it, this is not at all the case. Chance may break up old
> habits--and this is essential, for example, for evolution to occur
Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation. The key point of
habit is repetition.
Clark, Jon S, Gary F, Edwina, John S, list,
This is a most interesting discussion, but for now I'd like only to repeat
a point which, as I recall, Jon S recently made in response to you. You
wrote:
It’s also the case that chance creates habit.
But, as I see it, this is not at all the case. Chan
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
>
> I’ve been trying to think the best way to get into this subject. I recognize
> it’ll diverge from Edwina’s discussion so I’m changing the subject.
Whoops. I said that and then accidentally posted without changing the subject.
I’ll use “Mea
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
> I would suggest that 1ns is better characterized as spontaneity, life, and
> freedom than as pure chance in the sense of randomness, especially as it
> relates to mind as 3ns.
I’ve been trying to think the best way to get into this s
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:50 PM, John Collier wrote:
>
> SM is statistical mechanics. I don’t recall Peirce ever discussing it, though
> it was well known at his time, and proven beyond a doubt with Einstein’s ex
> planation of Brownian motion in 1906. Before that many French theorists
> reject
Jerry, List ...
Just back from travel and it may be a while before I get back in gear,
but here's a few links on how I would (and long ago did) begin to get
a handle on the issue, with an eye as always to real-world practical
applications:
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis in the
> physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred to me. What
> class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to how we describe a
> law o
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that adaptation and evolution are
> due to randomness and Natural Selection. I think that adaptation and
> evolution are actions of Mind; that is, the biological systems adapt to
> environment
Gary F - Thanks for the quotation. I have only part of the EP2 - and
those pages weren't included. I do prefer the CP collection.
No- I am not assuming that the object of a metaphorical sign isn't
real. I am sure that it can be/IS real. That's not my point. - which
was to question first
List,
I think there are two signs we are talking about: The law formation sign, and a law application (instantiation?) sign.
In the law formation sign, it depends on ones belief, which kind of interpretant the law is: Does the law not change anymore, then the interpretant is final, and the immed
Edwina, you appear to be assuming that the object of a metaphorical sign cannot
be real. I don’t subscribe to that assumption.
For Peirce’s explanation of this point, see the passage I cited from Peirce’s
Harvard Lecture 4, EP2:193-4. Since you don’t seem to use EP2, and this passage
was app
Gary F - I don't quite understand your statement:
"These are clearly symbols, though not conventional, and (as
constituents of an argument) take the form of propositions. I think
John is right to call them metaphorical, as our primary experience of
these symbols is anthropomorphic"
Jon A.S., John S.,
I agree with John on this point — but see further my insertion below.
Gary F.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 6-Apr-17 17:52
John S., List:
JFS: In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is a metaphor for
aspects o
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list:
I think a law refers to the continuity of a type of behaviour; i.e.,
among a collective, not to a rule of behaviour in one specific
instantiation.
That is, a law would refer to the continuity
On 4/6/2017 5:51 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
JFS: In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is
a metaphor for aspects of nature that we can only describe.
Again, I am asking about those aspects of nature /themselves/, not our
linguistic or mathematical descriptions of them. What clas
30 matches
Mail list logo
