Mike, I realize that Peirce mentioned "crystals and bees" in the same sentence. But we have to consider his classification of the sciences. Pure mathematics comes first, and it does not depend on anything else. It incudes all varieties, including formal or mathematical logic, discrete math, and continuous math. And Peirce followed Aristotle in insisting that continuous spaces (of which a line is a 1-D space) do not have points as parts. For Aristotle and Peirce, points are markers that designate a locus ON a space, but are not parts OF the space.
That is the basis for Aristotle's solution to Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the turtle, which Peirce knew very well. Phaneroscopy depends only on mathematics, not semeiotic. For Peirce, the phaneron is raw, unprocessed and uninterpreted experience. (Modern cognitive science has more to say about these issues, but it may be deferred for analyzing what Peirce wrote.) The result of analyzing the phaneron is expressed in linguistic terms, which depend on psychic science, which may employ the methods of any and every science that precedes it. That includes all previous sciences, including the physical sciences and other psychic sciences. MB> I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, but is not definitive of it. I agree that Peirce did not define 3ns in terms of intentionality. But every example that he cited does indeed involve intentionality. Can anybody find a single example of Thirdness in any writings by Peirce that does not involve intentions at least at the level of a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient. Even a description of how plants grow would involve Thirdness in the same sense as a bacterium. But a description of a crystal could be stated in two ways. If you consider the structure of the crystal as the desired final state, then a description in those terms would be stated in TERMINOLOGICAL thirdness. That may be the reason why Peirce wrote "crystals and bees". And that answer involves something very close to intentionality: In forming a diamond, each atom of carbon goes to a position where it minimizes the total energy of the crystal structure. In effect, the carbon atom "wants" to minimize energy in the same sense that a bacterium wants to ingest glucose. But if you look at the way crystals actually grow in nature, each atom or molecule in the crystal goes into its spot in the structure by principles of 2-ness -- following the strongest forces that act upon it. Those are EXTERNAL forces that act upon the atoms. That is very different from the INTERNAL forces in the bacterium that govern how it behaves in the presence of an external glucose gradient. Take for example the two most common carbon crystals: graphite and diamond. At modest level of heat, such as burning wood or paper, any unburnt carbon forms soot. If you examine that soot with a powerful microscope, you'll find that the soot particles contain very small graphite crystals mixed with other residues of burning. That can be explained by the atoms clumping together in a low energy state by 2ns, not 3ns, But if you put the graphite under high compression at high temperatures, you can force the carbon atoms even closer together in a state with lower energy: diamond crystals. Those are also external forces that act upon the carbon atoms. Peirce knew the chemistry of his day very well. But the atomic hypothesis of his day and theories about crystal formation were in their infancy. With modern theories, descriptions at the level of 2ns can explain chemical reactions and the way atoms move in forming crystals. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Mike Bergman" <m...@mkbergman.com> Sent: 2/12/24 5:19 PM 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
