Helmut, List: Rather than mathematics, tautology, or truth, Peirce identified the psychical law--the Law of Mind, generalization, the habit-taking tendency--as the primordial law, from which all physical laws are "derived and special" (CP 6.24). In "A Guess at the Riddle" (CP 1.412; 1887-1888), he wrote that the "second flash" came about "by the principle of habit"--which means that the latter must have already been in place. In fact, in an early draft of "A Neglected Argument" (R 842; 1908), Peirce acknowledged that "there must have been some original tendency to take habits which did not arise according to my hypothesis," crediting this correction to Professor Ogden Rood. If the tendency to take habits was truly "original," then 3ns must have preceded 1ns and 2ns in some sense--presumably more logical than temporal, per Clark's comments.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Edwina, list, > If there are limitless possibilities in the beginning, and then evolve > things, matter, laws, due to habit-taking, one might ask, on which grounds > and basis does this selection takes place? One might say, that for instance > mathematics is the basis for physics. But what is mathematics? A Platonian > idea? No, it is an elaboration of tautology, I guess. If somebody would > claim that "1+1=2" is only true in this universe, but in another universe > "1+1=3", he would be wrong, because "2" is defined as "1+1". So maybe the > one and only law that selects possibilities due to their viability, and > thus is responsible for habits, is the law of truth, which is nothing but > accordance to tautology. So maybe it is not even a law. But it is the only > A-Priori: Truth is tautology, or it is what it is. Maybe even the > categorical imperative is based on this not-law of identity. Maybe > identity, tautology, truth are (universal) thirdness concepts which are > there in the instant, secondness (something) is there? "Something", evolved > secondness, sticks out of the Tohuvabohu by adressing itself "I am like I > am, and remain so", permanent for some time in contrast to the brew of > possibilities, which are not permanent, but just a turbulent mess. What I > want to say, is, I agree with you that no God is necessary. But the > self-explaining concept of Truth is, which is very simple: Tautology. But > do religions say that God is not simple, or do they rather talk about > almightiness, so may we just say that it is ok. to call Truth/Tautology, > which obviously is almighty, and perhaps the only almighty thing/law, > "God"? Ok, I guess that would be too simple and silly. It was just a > "gedankenexperiment" of mine, having been gotten carried away somehow. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
