Edwina, List
Edwina, I ran your objections past Grok. If you have an X account (others in this list might), you can access the chat here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/YsZeYKy6Z1ao44GoCXAy869OB Grok is fine with my perspective. If you can’t access the above link, then see the attached for the relevant bits of my exchange with Grok (the copy-pasted format is untidy… it’s fine when viewed online). If you’re still sceptical of what Grok is capable of, perhaps now is the time to consider changing your mind. >”As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within the >biosemoitic world…” Seriously? That’s disappointing. The physicalist code-biology bs has long exceeded its use-by date. No wonder there’s a crisis in physics. sj From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky Sent: 16 October, 2025 8:36 PM To: [email protected]; Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> Cc: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quantum Peirce for dummies List, Stephen I will only post this one time as I recall our earlier arguments over this focus - which went nowhere. I think the basic augment for me - is not whether or not Peircean samosas is applicable at the quantum level, for I think that is -but is about the role of and the nature of : The Categories. I feel they are deeply ignored and/or misunderstood among the Peircean world. Again - my concern in Jarosek’s outline is the definition and use of Peircean Thirdness [ the mental organizational principle] as both some form of Secondness [ indexicality] and as a hierarchical authority by ‘downward causation’ which implies some kind of separate abstract out-of-body force. And I don’t see ‘bottom-up causation’ as reductionism but as an acknowledgement of the realities of both Firstness and Secondness as organizational principles of energy/matter. . I won’t comment further because it’s all been said before. My view, as I’ve said before is that all three categories are fundamental to achieve the organization of energy/matter. This view also differs from that of JAS and Gary R - who see Thirdness as primary. And - as another example of a different focus on the categories - there’s the view of Marcello Barbieri, who, in my view, totally and deeply misreads and misunderstands Peirce - confining Peirce’s semiosis to ONLY the interpretative phase of the triad {O-R/S-I] ..while, he, Barbieri has removed both Firstness and the Object and redefined it as ‘Manufacturing’; and removed Secondness and redefined it as a ’signalling function’. As such, Barbieri has ended the Peircean focus of Jesper Hoffmeyer within the biosemoitic world…I won’t comment further on this sad state.. I am grateful to Robert Marty whose outline of the categories seem, to me, to be accurate and correct analyses of Peirce’s agenda in providing us with these three categories. Again - all are, in my understanding, fundamental to the formation of energy/matter. . Edwina On Oct 16, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: List, A few weeks ago, I posted a comment to a forum that was well-received, somewhat to my surprise. It was a summary of my main thesis, currently under review with a journal, available as a preprint, here (some of you were introduced to earlier drafts of it a couple of months ago): <https://www.academia.edu/129898049/Association_as_Downward_Causation> https://www.academia.edu/129898049/Association_as_Downward_Causation My brief comment to the forum was an outline of why, though I’m not a fan of panpsychism, I certainly do support a theory of “mind stuff” playing out throughout all levels of existence, including matter. Apparently, people can still “get it” without having to read the 20+ pages of my more thoroughly supported document. Here is that tl;dr summary for those who prefer a briefer outline. THEORY OF EVERYTHING FOR DUMMIES References to panpsychism make me nervous. I'm more inclined to look to raw "mind stuff" as first cause, and in this regard, the semiotic theory of CS Peirce and Terence Deacon's (2012, 2021) notion of molecules as signs are especially interesting. Peircean association, as downward causation, "informs" bottom-up causation (reductionism) of the options that are available, and so addresses the entropy problem. Example of association? Two Hydrogen atoms + one Oxygen atom, in association, constitute a water molecule. Association also plays out in the quantum void, virtual particles, etc, as per the Feynman diagrams - association relates to the tensions between the known and the unknown. What other entities must contend with the tensions between the known and the unknown? We do. All living things do, and that's why Peircean association is important to them and us, too (Jarosek, 2001). The opposable thumbs, eyes, ears, sex differences, vocal apparatus, etc that constitute human embodied cognition enable us to associate language, experiences, meaning and culture... culture is our downward causation, wiring our neuroplastic brains (Jarosek, 2020). Then factor in Carlo Rovelli's Relational QM to seal the deal. If my conjecture is right, this does away with physicalism, Copenhagenesque subatomic billiard-balls popping into and out of existence, and the even nuttier notions of multiverse, manyworlds, and dead-alive cats. Rovelli's RQM (1996) is key, imho... that's about as close to panpsychism as I'm prepared to venture. [Had I heard of Rovelli’s work before 2001, I would have cited him in my 2001 paper] And with this extensive simplicity and generality, from top to bottom (Michael Levin's "all the way down"), we satisfy Occam's razor. REFERENCES Deacon, T.W. (2012). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W.W. Norton&Co. Deacon, T.W. (2021, September 25). How Molecules Became Signs. Biosemiotics, 14, 537-559. Jarosek, S. (2001). The law of association of habits. Semiotica, 133(1/4), 79-96: <https://www.academia.edu/3236556/The_law_of_association_of_habits> https://www.academia.edu/3236556/The_law_of_association_of_habits Jarosek, S. (2020). Knowing how to be: Imitation, the neglected axiom. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 27(3), 33-63: <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003> https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003 Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637–1678. Watson, R., & Levin, M. (2023, May 23). The collective intelligence of evolution and development. Collective Intelligence, 2(2), 1-22. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] . ► <a href=" <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l> https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
251017c Peirce Categories - Definitions.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
