Mike, list
I think we are talking past each other and possibly saying the same
thing.
Let's see....how to phrase it.
In my view, the categories are 'universal' in that they apply to all
of the universe. They are universal in that their actions don't change
according to the time, place and what is being organized /formed by
these categories. 1ns is always that burst of sensation; that
unanalyzed experience of qualities. 2ns always includes
differentiation of 'this' from 'that'. 3ns includes commonalities of
laws.
Of course, the categories do not 'exist' per se, but are
explanations of how matter is organized. In this sense - the category
of 1ns is 'contextual' in that it refers to how, for example, a cell
in interaction with another cell functions as an 'explosive burst of
unanalyzed data'. If we refer to it in the mode of 2ns, this same
cell's data burst would function as a differential force between it
and another cell. If we refer to it in the mode of 3ns, the
interaction would be one of sing that data burst to find commonality
between the two cells.
My reason for pointing out that 1ns is expressed within an
interaction [which suggest 2ns] - is that I consider that no sign
[the triad] functions in isolation. Nothing functions in isolation.
The difference between 1ns and 2ns interaction is that, in 2ns, the
two entities are 'aware' [and this does not mean intellectual
consciousness] enough to have moved into a reaction. So, in 1ns, the
cell provides an explosive burst of data. In 2ns, this data is
reacted to..again, not necessarily consciously or intellectually. A
windmill reacting to the wind is in a mode of 2ns. ..with the wind as
a burst of energy/1ns.
Now - is this what you mean by 'contextual'? I'd agree with the
'enumeration of tests' to recognize the mode..
I'd agree with the Big Bang emergence - as outlined [1.412] by
Peirce, which seems to be 1ns then the differentiation of 2ns and
then, the acknowledgment of commonalities and the development of
shared habits of organization. And yes, the components of the
proto-sign would be before matter, with matter understood as at
first operative within 2ns.
I have no problem - and perhaps I am deluding myself- with
understanding 1ns as the 'instantaneous present'. An example would be
the sensation of touching the hot stove [I admit I've just baked a
rhubarb crumble and have that experience]...but it is an experience
of pure sensation without consciousness of 'what' it is. Firstness in
this sense is an informational explosion but without any sense of
differentiation between cause and result; no sense of 'me' vs 'other;
no awareness of specifics...and I'd bet that a fair amount of entropic
dissipation of data occurs before the interaction moves into 2ns [and
consciousness] of 'ouch' and..into 3ns and the conclusion that this
'ouch' resulted from that hot baking pan.
[By the way, I don't consider the ordinality of First, Second, Third
to refer to the categories].
Again, I think we are saying the same thing...not sure...
Edwina
On Tue 09/03/21 1:18 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
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
[1] shows the many areas he applied the categories. (Or the 60
or so examples I have published in Table 6-2 [2].) 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 [3]). 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 :
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 :
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
__________________________________________
Links:
------
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)
[2] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
