Gary R - as Peirce notes, the 'triadic fact takes place in thought' (6.324)
but, as he also notes, "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).
So, I will continue with my support for the notion that the physico-chemical
realm operates within a semiosic process; ie., is triadic. Again, evolution of
the habits of formation is not in itself a requirement for the definition of
semiosis.
BUT, I think that life, which is to say, the biological realm, has inserted
'chance' into its dynamics. Freedom or differentiation-from-the-norm would be
disastrous in the physico-chemical realm for it would enable energy/matter
dissipation to the LCD. I therefore suspect that this realm immunized itself
against freedom very early in the development of the universe. But the
biological realm requires freedom to enable diversity. It 'reduced' the nature
of the Representamen (the means of developing/using habits-of-formation) from a
pure final state to one that is unable to reach a final state and thus is open
to connections with other networked triads and thus, can be 'degenerate' and
open to change.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:44 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the
origins of life
Gary F., Lists,
Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts on
"genuineness" in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new subject line as
it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns.
The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so that at
one point I made extensive notes on it and some related passages in preparation
for writing a paper having the working title, "Peirce and Chirality," but I got
distracted by life and never finished it. Yet I remain as interested in
"handedness" as ever and, in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I
believe, I read a marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled
The Ambidextrous Universe, which in it latest updated version has been
re-titled The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry from Mirror
Reflections to Superstrings. I would like to get into Peirce and chirality at
some point after the NP seminar if there's interest in that topic and will then
refer to some of the sources the Gardner book took me to.
The Peirce passage, a long paragraph which I've broken up into several
smaller ones, is of some interest in relation not only to chirality but to
several topics which have recently been discussed on these lists,and especially
to the problem of the origin of life.
In segment (a). Peirce writes that he has not found a single "genuine triadic
relation" which is not "an intellectual relation" or one concerned with the
"phenomena of life." This would seem to argue against a pre-biological semiosis
if genuine triadic relations are considered sine qua non for semiosis (but are
they?)
But then he offers by way of "brute, inorganic" example, chirality, and
argues that L- R-handedness (d) "could not be caused by the inorganic action of
dynamical law":
(e) . . . the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve triadic
relations is by their reference to second differentials of positions. But
though a second differential generally involves a triadic relation, yet owing
to the law of the conservation of energy [. . .] which has been sufficiently
proved for purely inorganic phenomena, the dynamic laws for such phenomena are
expressible in terms of first differentials. It is, therefore, a non-genuine,
or, as I phrase it, a "degenerate" form of triadic relationship.
So, given that the pervasive holochirality in the universe seems inexplicable
unless 'chance' be offered as its explanation, while (d) "it is a question
whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not to be regarded as a
product of freedom, and therefore of life," Peirce concludes that in
consideration of "the problem of how life first came about" that
(e). . the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the
world is a better, because more definite, formulation of the problem of how
life first came about; and no explanation has ever been offered except that of
pure chance, which we must suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion
that pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon.
Of course since his time there have been other explanations offered. What
interests me for now is that in that earlier comment in (d) as to whether
absolute chance "ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and
therefore of life" Peirce adds a remarkable phrase modifying 'life', namely,
"not necessarily physiological." Thus, the complete snippet reads:
. . . it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought
not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life, not
necessarily physiological. (emphasis added)
But what can that phrase "not necessarily physiological" be pointing to?
Still, and mainly, Peirce offers "the problem of how genuine triadic
relationships first arose in the world" as being "a better, because more
definite, formulation of the problem of how life first came about."
It would appear that this matter of "genuineness" really might be a key to
resolving a number of issues currently under discussion, and I'm glad you
brought it up Gary.
Here's the complete passage referred to:
a. For forty years, that is, since the beginning of the year 1867, I have
been constantly on the alert to find a genuine triadic relation -- that is, one
that does not consist in a mere collocation of dyadic relations [. . . ] which
is not either an intellectual relation or a relation concerned with the less
comprehensible phenomena of life. I have not met with one which could not
reasonably be supposed to belong to one or other of these two classes.
b. As a case as nearly brute and inorganic as any, I may mention the form of
relationship involved in any screw-form which is definitely of the right-hand,
or occidental, mode, or is definitely of the Japanese, or left-handed, mode.
Such a relation exists in every carbon-atom whose four valencies are saturated
by combination with four atoms of as many different kinds. But where the action
of chance determines whether the screw be a right-handed or a left-handed one,
the two forms will, in the long run, be produced in equal proportions, and the
general result will not be definitely, or decisively, of either kind.
c. We know no case of a definitely right-handed or left-handed
screw-phenomenon, where the decision is not certainly due to the intervention
of a definitely one-sided screw in the conditions of that decision, except in
cases where the choice of a living being determines it; as when Pasteur picked
out under the microscope the two kinds of crystals of a tartrate, and shoved
those of one kind to the right and those of the other kind to the left.
d. We do not know the mechanism of such choice, and cannot say whether it be
determined by an antecedent separation of left-handed screws from right-handed
screws or not. No doubt, all that chance is competent to destroy, it may, once
in a long, long time, produce; but it is a question whether absolute chance --
pure tychism -- ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore
of life, not necessarily physiological. It could not be caused, apparently, by
the inorganic action of dynamical law.
e. For the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve triadic relations
is by their reference to second differentials of positions. But though a second
differential generally involves a triadic relation, yet owing to the law of the
conservation of energy, which has been sufficiently proved for purely inorganic
phenomena, the dynamic laws for such phenomena are expressible in terms of
first differentials. It is, therefore, a non-genuine, or, as I phrase it, a
"degenerate" form of triadic relationship which is involved in such case. In
short, the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the
world is a better, because more definite, formulation of the problem of how
life first came about; and no explanation has ever been offered except that of
pure chance, which we must suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion
that pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon. In that case, life in the
physiological sense would be due to life in the metaphysical sense. . . . CP
6.322
Best,
Gary R.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
