Hi Edwina, Auke, List,
I am having a hard time understanding the reluctance to embrace
'context' for Peirce's universal categories. It seems to me that except
for possibly First, Second and Third, that all Peircean uses of the
universal categories are contextual. Indeed, it is the triadic relations
of a sign that even allows for the formal treatment of 'context'.
A simple perusal of Peirce's Classification of the Sciences
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)>
shows the many areas he applied the categories. (Or the 60 or so
examples I have published in Table 6-2
<https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf>.) One of the
main points I have been arguing has been the importance -- at least to
me -- for studying these uses across contexts in order to better grok
the richness and character Peirce had in mind when referencing
Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. This is in keeping with Peirce's
guidance for natural classification as “only an enumeration of tests by
which the class may be recognized in any one of its members.” (CP 1.223,
1902)
As to the 'force' of the universal categories, I guess I tend to try to
apply some form of 'indeterminant reductionism' to work my way back to
the most basic (root or fundamental or first) expression of the
universal categories, close to what might be the first sign to emerge at
the moment of the Big Bang. In that regard, candidates like energy,
spin, direction (propagation vector), light, or maybe waves appear to be
close to the first concepts. I feel this kind of analysis is essential
to test the 'realness' of the universal categories in relation to modern
science and whether a triadic foundation is both sufficient and
necessary to represent all of reality. I am intrigued with Peirce's
concept of information as the area of breadth x depth, and have an
instinct this may relate to space and light. Continuity and its relation
to time and space also intrigue me. Whatever it is, I think the
components of the proto-sign should be before matter in E = mcc (also
consistent with today's standard cosmology
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology>). The pool of
candidates for these possible components should be quite limited. As to
what actual three components might represent that first sign and in
accord with which category is something I have been contemplating for a
few years now. It is probably my most active area of current Peirce
research.
At any rate, this assembling of concepts for 1ns, 2ns and 3ns across
instances of the use of the universal categories, including trying to
understand and use prescissive distinctions, have seemingly been helping
me understand the universal categories better. Or, perhaps, I am just
deluding myself. For example, I still find characterizing the
'instantaneous present' as 1ns as one of the more challenging ones.
Pointers or criticisms are heartily welcomed!
Best, Mike
On 3/9/2021 10:52 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote:
Edwina,
The misunderstanding is probably mine. Trichotomies are the
sub-categories. Within the classification of sciences the order is:
esthetics, ethics and logic. It is the scientific context. With
society I am inclined to order thus: esthetics, logic, ethics. But
indeed it is not the functional action that changes.
best,
Auke
Op 9 maart 2021 om 17:00 schreef Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>:
Auke, list
I wonder if we are misinterpreting each other.
By 'context' with regard to the categories, what bothers me is that I
don't feel that the nature or functional actions of the category
changes according to context. That is, 1ns remains as Firstness; 2ns
as 2ns, 3ns as 3ns. I don't see that their actions change whether one
uses the categories within a cenoscopic research [ie, theoretical]
versus an idioscopic [ie objective experimental of specific
situations/things].
Now - what am I misunderstanding?
Edwina
On Tue 09/03/21 10:37 AM , "Auke van Breemen"
[email protected] sent:
Edwina,
You wrote:
1] I'm very hesitant to bring in the attribute of 'context' to
analysis of the categories. I consider them universal forces -
and am cautious that 'context' reduces them to relativistic forces.
For the cenoscopic list I agree, but I think that ideoscopic
categories arise by the introduction of context.
Auke
Op 9 maart 2021 om 15:09 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
</[email protected]>
Mike, list
Thanks for your comments - and - A few more comments:
1] I'm very hesitant to bring in the attribute of 'context' to
analysis of the categories. I consider them universal forces -
and am cautious that 'context' reduces them to relativistic forces.
You wrote: " 3ns is the future both because of its prescissive
logic, and it represents the continuous whole to which the
cosmos is equilibrating. In contrast, for local circumstances
and objects, the generalizing continuity is towards habit
acquisition, not necessarily a time construct such as the future"
As for the notion of 'future' - since, as I understand it, the
Peircean future is open and abductive rather than determined,
then I'm not sure that there is a 'continuous whole' in the
future. And habit acquisition is in itself, open, even in its
own actions of trying to restrict this openness! The
incredible nature of Thirdness is that there are three modes!
3-3, 3-2 and 3-1. That inserts both actions: those of
communal stability and those of local open contextuality. That
ensures both stability and openness...
2] Yes, I prefer the 'umbrella-spoke' as an image of the triad.
Peirce himself used it...1.347]. The thing about the umbrella
spoke is that it can show how an Interpretant Relation can move
into becoming an Object Relation in another triad. And, it shows
that no triad is isolate; all are networked into a complex system..
3] You wrote: " Three others, close to the root of the root,
that also give me a great deal of difficulty are 'space',
'time', and 'light' (photons). I tend to view 'light' at the
actual transition between 1ns and 2ns, with both 'time' and
'space' following in 2ns thereafter:
Agree. With regard to time, as you know, I prefer Matsuno's
analysis. As for space - difficult; As you know, following the
analysis of Atmanspacher, I've divided space into four key
zones expressed by the Relations: internal local 1-1; internal
global 3-2; and external local 2-2 and external global 3-1. That
leaves me with the problem of what I call the 'interface
relation' of 2-1 which is both internal and external - and 3-3
which I view as aspatial and atemporal.
That is, I consider the six Peircean Relations as operating
within specific attributes of both space and time.
With regard to 'light', I'd consider it free energy.
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
