Jeffrey, list. Yes, although of course Prigogine and Peirce lived at
different times, I think that Prigogine was trying to address several
principles that Peirce was also addressing; namely:
1) entropy or dissipation; and
2) habit-taking, continuity or self-organization.
Peirce's answer to the first is to introduce the mode of Firstness,
which is always intruding its actions into a seemingly stable systems
and thus, enabling diversity; and his answer to the second, of
habit-taking and self-organization within these habits, is to
introduce the mode of Thirdness.
I think that Prigogine was rejecting the random mechanical nature of
entropy as it was used in early Darwinian outlines - and Peirce
certainly rejects that view as well. And Peirce's habits, of course,
have little to nothing to do with 'natural selection' as a
stabilizing force for continuity of type.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Fri 31/03/17 12:46 PM , Jeffrey Brian Downard
[email protected] sent:
Edwina, Clark, Jon S, List,
Let's make a comparison for the sake of framing a question in the
special science of cosmological physics. Does Peirce's explanatory
principle help to address the kinds of questions that Ilya
Prigogine is trying to answer about the irreversibility of
thermodynamical systems? Once again, here is the quote in which
Peirce describes the principle: “out of the womb of
indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come something, by
the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the
principle of habit there would have been a second flash…..” (CP,
1.412)
See: Prigogine, Ilya (1961). Introduction to Thermodynamics of
Irreversible Processes (Second ed.). New York: Interscience.
If Peirce is addressing the same sort of question, then are the
Prigogine and Peirce explaining the irreversibility of such
thermodynamical processes in the same general way? Or, is Peirce
trying to answer a set of prior questions. For instance, one might
infer from the quote above taken together with Peirce says in the
last of the lectures in Reasoning and the Logic of Things (including
the suggestive draft versions) that Peirce is interested in more
general questions about what makes any sort of process ordered so
that it is irreversible--including, for example, the "unfolding" of
the dimensions of quality as well as those of space and the order of
time.
Prigogine's general strategy is to provide an account of what makes
some complex systems chaotic. Then, he tries to explain how some
chaotic systems can evolve in a manner that is self-organizing. The
explanation draws on the conception of a dissipative structure. As
such, a comparison between the two might help us better understand
how to frame competing hypotheses concerning the evolution of order
in such systems--including forms of order that are irreversible in
one way or another.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
-------------------------
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:53 AM
To: [email protected]; CLARK GOBLE
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Physico-Chemical and Biological Semiosis (Was
semantic problem with the term) Edwina, Clark, List:
Thank you for beginning what promises to be an interesting
discussion. I might offer some comments later, but for now I am
simply starting a new thread, because I think that the topic warrants
doing so.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Clark - OK - I'll put in a long comment here on how I see the
non-philosophical aspects of Peirce's work. Thanks for your
encouragement to do so.
Basic axioms: that our universe operates as
energy-transforming-to-matter, or ‘things’ [Peirce used the term
‘things’ often] via semiosic actions.
*
The emergence of Matter: Peirce: 1.412 “out of the womb of
indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come something, by
the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the
principle of habit there would have been a second flash…..” The
point here is that matter emerged as differentiated and also, as then
connected by habits and by kinetic interaction.
The origin of Material matter: 1.362 “the starting point of the
universe, God the Creator is the Absolute First; the terminus of the
universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every
state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the
third……..If your creed is that the whole universe is approaching
in the infinitely distance future a state having a general character
different from that toward which we look back in the infinitely
distance past, you make the absolute to consist in two distinct real
points and are an evolutionist”
I consider the term ‘God’ to be a synonym for Mind. See
Peirce’s analysis – and I’ll only refer to a few:
“Mind is a propositional function of the widest possible universe,
such that its values are the meanings of all signs whose actual
effects are in effective interconnection” [ 4.550].
NOTE: I note the term function which to me suggests that Mind is an
action and a process. I note also the term signs which to me cannot
refer simply to the representamen but to the whole articulated triad.
4.551: “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It
appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely
physical world”….But as there cannot be a General without
Instances embodying it, so there cannot be thought without Signs.
“
Note: Sign is capitalized in the original. And Peirce also suggests
being careful lest we set up a “danger that our system may not
represent every variety of non-human thought”. I take this to mean
that his system is intended to represent every variety of non-human
thought – and therefore, one does not require to go FIRST to the
study of human thought to understand and use Peircean semiosis in the
non-human realm. And I note his comments on protoplasm and crystals
etc – which I won’t repeat here as the post would be too long -
and it's already long enough!
Therefore, the Absolute First, understood as Feeling, but not the
sensational view of that term, but as a primeval Will. [Again- I can
find the reference..]
*
The starting point as Symbol: Certainly, one can define this
original Mind as a type of symbol – but not the human understanding
of the term which puts it in a mode of Thirdness or art-i-factual,
but I understand it as will, or desire to continuity of that
material existence without the awareness of this existence; and the
nature of this existence is, as evolutionary, open in its expression.
Therefore it is not an iconic or indexical mode of articulation which
would reject diversity and spontaneity of new forms and complexity
but symbolic in that the articulation is free and open.
*
I understand these ‘things’ as having, necessarily FORM. The
form, which sets up a differential boundary, sets matter up in a mode
of Secondness, which is stabilized by the habits-of-formation of
Thirdness.
I won’t go into the many references to Secondness in Peirce’s
work - since there are so many – but it is obvious that matter
within a mode of Secondness MUST have a differential FORM – or it
would be unable to carry out the key action of Secondness, which is
– to interact.
*
The method of this movement from pure Mind [pure energy] to
particular Matter – is by the triadic process of the Sign, which I
understand as irreducibly triadic.
“I will sketch a proof that the idea of meaning is irreducible to
those of quality and reaction. It depends on two main premises. The
first is that every genuine triadic relation involves meaning, as
meaning is obviously a triadic relation. The second is that a
triadic relation is inexpressible by means of dyadic relations
alone”. 1.345
Now – with regard to the above, my interpretation is that pure
Mind in that mode of Firstness or potentiality – transforming to
matter is an ‘act of meaning’. And, Peirce says that such a
method of so doing is triadic. It must involve three ‘nodes’ so
to speak: the Object-Representamen-Interpretant’. Then, I am aware
that many on this list understand the semiosic action as ‘the
sign/representamen’ in a relation with the Object and the
Interpretant. I reject this interpretation for two reasons. First –
the interaction of the Representamen-Object can be and usually is, in
a different categorical mode than the relation with the Interpretant.
Second – if one does not acknowledge this capacity for modal
differences, it reduces the interaction to ‘dyadic relations’.
Therefore, I follow the graph with three tails as outlined in 1.347.
This of course enables complex networking, where a Dynamic
Interpretant in one triad can function as the Dynamic Object in
another triad.
I feel that these basic axioms enable one to explore the
physico-chemical and biological realms as complex semiosic processes.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [3]
On Thu 30/03/17 5:42 PM , CLARK GOBLE [email protected] [4] sent:
On Mar 30, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
So- given the make-up of the posters on this list and their
interest [in philosophy] then, I don't see the point of bringing up
the non-philosophical focus of Peirce's work. I should note that
while my own interests are primarily philosophical, my background is
actual primarily physics not philosophy. I enjoy the
non-philosophical topics quite a bit although I often don’t know
enough about the topic to say much. I’ve brought up some of the
non-philosophical topics here before too such as the relationship of
category theory in advanced physics or mathematics as it relates to
Peirce. Not that I know much about category theory, but a few others
made comments I learned from.
So I am actually pretty interesting in the applied semiotics.
Indeed while my interests are primarily philosophical I’ve read a
reasonable amount on applies semiotics in various arenas.
I seem to remember a discussion a few months ago on political
implications of Peirce’s thought. I focused primarily on his more
conservative tendencies in his critical common sensism but also the
focus on inquiry.
Anyway, please comment on the non-philosophical points. Even if I
don’t typically comment I frequently read them.
Links:
------
[1] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.primus.ca
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
