Ben, Edwina, Helmut, lists, I can see from your responses that these issues of chirality and genuine (vs degenerate) triadic relations might be approached from a number of angles. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by broaching them taken together, although it would appear that Peirce was attempting just that in the passage earlier quoted.
For now, I would say that I can't but help agree with Peirce that *genuine* triadic relations only occur in the biologic and intellectual realms, while I leave the possibility of degenerate semiosis occurring before life as an open question. Gardner discusses chirality and the advent of life in several chapters, most especially in chptr. 15, "The origin of life." What I remember most from Gardner's book is his emphasis on two of the greatest scientific advances of the century as involving chirality: namely, physics' overthrow of parity (chptr 22, "The fall of parity") and biology's discovery of the corkscrew nature of the molecule carrying the genetic code chptr. 14, "Living molecules"). Gardner's pretty good on the philosophical history of thinking about chirality and has some illuminating passages reflecting on Kants, Pasteur's, Japp's, de Nouy's, and others' understandings of it, as well as the thinking of more contemporary philosophers and, especially, scientists from Pauli through to those working in superstring theory (btw, 4 of the 5 current versions of superstring theory involve chirality). As for the matter-antimatter matter, it's discussed in Gardner's book here and there in several chapters and especially in chptrs. 21, "Antiparticles" and 26, "Where's the antimatter?," but I too, while I read quite a bit in about it a decade or so ago, am hardly an expert. For now, I'll conclude with a brief quote from Gardner's book which may *very tentatively* connect some of the questions your posts brought up, at least for me In a discussion of "weak interactions" Gardner writes: [O]ne cannot completely rule out the possibility that whatever is responsible for the asymmetry of weak interactions may also play a role in the formation of primitive organic compounds. That thought will have me up half the night! Maybe that's enough for one post. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > Gary R., Gary F., lists, > > Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I > should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. > > Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general > relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or > contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal > situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. > > Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that > relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. > > There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, which > I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes anti-matter into > account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the observed > matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think that the > chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to > observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. But who > knows. > > Best, Ben > > On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > 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 .
