Hi John,
I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness,
but is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns
almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures
(with Mind) Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does
not require intentionality. You might even diagram it out.
And don't forget crystals (and atoms).
Best, Mike
On 2/12/2024 3:59 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Mike,
In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness
involves intentionality. But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic
notion, it is biomorphic in the most fundamental sense.
Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose
gradient is a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living
physical system shows any kind of intentionality, I believe that
Peirce would agree, since he cited dogs, parrots, bees, and even
plants at various times.
And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not
alive. They are signs that are interpreted by living things to
produce more signs of the same kind.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: "Mike Bergman" <m...@mkbergman.com>
Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,
I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the
'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another
possible link to the universal categories.
flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's
cosmogony begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I
don't know if 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both
quantum mechanics and the nature of energy can arguably be better
traced to the ideas of harmonic oscillators. Still, there is something
pregnant in that nexus . . . .
For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in
the sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information)
entropy. It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean
Secondness (energy) and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the
conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of contextual interpretation.
What say the list?
Thanks!
Best, Mike
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
319.621.5225
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
