> On Apr 7, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> But, as I see it, this is not at all the case. Chance may break up old 
> habits--and this is essential, for example, for evolution to occur

Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation. The key point of 
habit is repetition. But the repetition itself depends upon chance. This is 
best seen at the cosmological level where Peirce makes this argument explicitly.

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. Though time would 
not yet have been, this second flash was in some sense after the first, because 
resulting from it. Then there would have come other successions ever more and 
more closely connected, the habits and the tendency to take them ever 
strengthening themselves, until the events would have been bound together into 
something like a continuous flow. 

The quasi-flow which would result would, however, differ essentially from time 
in this respect, that it would not necessarily be in a single stream. Different 
flashes might start different streams, between which there should be no 
relations of contemporaneity or succession. So one stream might branch into 
two, or two might coalesce. But the further result of habit would inevitably be 
to separate utterly those that were long separated, and to make those which 
presented frequent common points coalesce into perfect union. Those that were 
completely separated would be so many different worlds which would know nothing 
of one another; so that the effect would be just what we actually observe. (CP 
1.412)


This habit taking is later explained.

all things have a tendency to take habits. . . . [For] every conceivable real 
object, there is a greater probability of acting as on a former like occasion 
than otherwise. This tendency itself constitutes a regularity, and is 
continually on the increase. . . . It is a generalizing tendency; it causes 
actions in the future to follow some generalizations of past actions; and this 
tendency itself is something capable of similar generalizations; and thus, it 
is self-generative. (CP 1.409 emphasis mine)

Quoting Kelly Parker on this point:

The character of such things, and consequently the relations and modes of 
interaction among them, would be extremely irregular at first. The principle of 
habit-taking has the effect of making events in the Universe of Actuality more 
stable and regular. It underlies the emergence of permanent substances, as we 
have seen. Beyond this, it has the effect of stabilizing the kinds of reaction 
which tend to occur among different substances. Nothing forces there to be a 
tendency toward regularity in the Universe of Actuality, for the notion of 
force implies necessity, an advanced variety of the regularity we are trying to 
explain (CP 1.407). Regularity, like possibility and particularity, must appear 
in the evolving cosmos by chance. But just as we have seen the tendency to take 
habits operate on Firstness to establish the Universe of Ideas and on 
Secondness to establish the universe of Actuality, so does it operate on 
Thirdness, on itself, to establish a universe dominated by Thirdness, 
lawfulness, order, and reasonableness.

Law is habit and Peirce is explicit in “A Guess at the Riddle” that law comes 
out of chance.

We are brought, then, to this: conformity to law exists only within a limited 
range of events and even there is not perfect, for an element of pure 
spontaneity or lawless originality mingles, or at least must be supposed to 
mingle, with law everywhere. Moreover, conformity with law is a fact requiring 
to be explained; and since Law in general cannot be explained by any law in 
particular, the explanation must consist in showing how law is developed out of 
pure chance, irregularity, and indeterminacy. (“A Guess at the Riddle”,  CP 
1.407)


-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to