RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
>”I doubt that the animal species had the brain capacity to develop language”
I don’t know about that. Communication between animals has been long
well-established, so perhaps I need to know what you mean by “language”. I am
almost embarrassed to have to admit that I just googled “do animals talk to one
another,” curious to see what google brings up. Birds are capable of a rich
repertoire of sounds, so it would come as a surprise to me if that richness was
not employed somehow in some manner of linguistic expression. I’ve often
observed magpies chortling in the early morning, and I cannot conclude anything
other than that they were communicating somehow with one another. Perhaps there
might be grounds for saying that magpie language does not have the semantic,
structural complexity that human languages have… but how can we know for sure?
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:11 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - you wrote that
that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not
to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied.
I don't see this; I don't see that the animal species CHOSE not to use those
vocal chords. Speech is a cognitive system, made up not merely of sounds but of
grammar; i.e., logical order of sounds. I doubt that the animal species had the
brain capacity to develop language - again, understanding language as a
symbolic system operating within a 'deep structural grammar'.
Therefore - I wouldn't follow Sebeok's view of the ape/chimpanzee.
I see biological [and physical] organisms as evolving complex Forms; the simple
organisms have a lesser ability to change but as simple - are everywhere -
various bacterium, simple insects, plants, etc...The more complex organisms are
more adaptable but are more diverse and 'niche-constrained'. The most complex
organism, our species, is highly adaptable, diverse and, interestingly, also
'niche-constrained'. That is, as material entities, we don't float above our
material environment, indifferently. We live, are rooted, in a 'niche', in a
neighbourhood...and develop local beliefs and behaviour...fascinating that we
always, although the same species - created diversity.
Edwina
On Tue 24/10/17 1:57 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
>”You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective
>actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement
>involves a communal interaction.”
You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the
interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of
this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical
anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost
identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different
personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I
encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial
representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to
speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words
perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more
going on. But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my
own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal
chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; 'Jeffrey Brian
Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the
FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can
certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you
are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You
seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions
- which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a
communal interaction.
I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind
functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the
Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form -
though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable
symbolic communication. I'm suggesti
Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a communal interaction. I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form - though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable symbolic communication. I'm suggesting that Mind cannot express itself in a similar capacity in all its biological Forms. That is Mind, understood as Reason/the Rational Will to Exist, operates in ALL biological forms but is it with the same capacity? I agree with your suspicion about 'information determinism' but I don't think that Thirdness/general habits are the same as mechanical determinism - because of the existence, also, of the other two modes. I'll try to take a look at your article on Quantum Semiotics. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 12:22 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a learning phase” Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would “ define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic) determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology (anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff. Insects are people too J An insect behaves as I would behave if I had an insect’s body. But there is another conjecture that I bring to bear on my reasoning, and it is DNA entanglement (nonlocality). The basis for my reasoning is outlined in my article, Quantum Semiotics [1]. DNA entanglement goes further in lifting us out of the notion of information determinism, to immerse us in an alternative narrative where knowing how to be (pragmatism “on steroids”) seems to be primary. This is the interpretation that first struck me when I stumbled across this link on DNA replication [2]. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [3] ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:01 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca [4]; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way. Yes, all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of the biological world]. I have put the knowledge base of most non-homo-sapiens as stored genetically/materially rather than socially/conceptually. After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a learning phase, whereas the human species requires a long learning phase - and- the development of a symbolic communication system to achieve that learning. Would you define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of options' ? But regardless of the terms, isn't the function of this difference in the nature of the knowledge base an important concept? The limited capacity to change a knowledge base, and its removal from any attempts to change it by storing it genetically rather than conceptually - means that the biological realm has a worldwide stable continuity of organization. Only the human realm can change - up to a point - both its biological and conceptual knowledge. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 10:25 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au [5] sent: >”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. ” Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so important. However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be. What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-b
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - you wrote that that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied. I don't see this; I don't see that the animal species CHOSE not to use those vocal chords. Speech is a cognitive system, made up not merely of sounds but of grammar; i.e., logical order of sounds. I doubt that the animal species had the brain capacity to develop language - again, understanding language as a symbolic system operating within a 'deep structural grammar'. Therefore - I wouldn't follow Sebeok's view of the ape/chimpanzee. I see biological [and physical] organisms as evolving complex Forms; the simple organisms have a lesser ability to change but as simple - are everywhere - various bacterium, simple insects, plants, etc...The more complex organisms are more adaptable but are more diverse and 'niche-constrained'. The most complex organism, our species, is highly adaptable, diverse and, interestingly, also 'niche-constrained'. That is, as material entities, we don't float above our material environment, indifferently. We live, are rooted, in a 'niche', in a neighbourhood...and develop local beliefs and behaviour...fascinating that we always, although the same species - created diversity. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 1:57 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >”You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a communal interaction.” You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more going on. But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal chords: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html [1] From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [2]] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca [3]; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a communal interaction. I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form - though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable symbolic communication. I'm suggesting that Mind cannot express itself in a similar capacity in all its biological Forms. That is Mind, understood as Reason/the Rational Will to Exist, operates in ALL biological forms but is it with the same capacity? I agree with your suspicion about 'information determinism' but I don't think that Thirdness/general habits are the same as mechanical determinism - because of the existence, also, of the other two modes. I'll try to take a look at your article on Quantum Semiotics. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 12:22 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au [4] sent: >”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a learning phase ” Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would “ define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic) determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology (anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stu
RE: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
>”You seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective
>actions - which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement
>involves a communal interaction.”
You raise good points Edwina. I try to keep things simple and brief, in the
interests of keeping things digestible. There is, of course, more to all of
this. Different species of dog, for example, can have basically identical
anatomical predispositions, you would think, given that they have almost
identical “tools” (body as tool)… yet they can be predisposed to very different
personalities, despite their apparent anatomical similarities. And I
encountered a reference somewhere pointing out that some animals have vestigial
representations of vocal chords but chose not to use them, so their ability to
speak atrophied. And then there are parrots that can articulate human words
perfectly, yet remain entirely birdlike in behavior. So there’s certainly more
going on. But the late Tomas Sebeok’s line of thinking basically parallels my
own, when he attributes an ape’s inability to speak to the absence of vocal
chords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunker-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:53 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the
FORM of the insect that is defining its actions within the world. I can
certainly see that the Form definitely enables/constrains its actions, but you
are, I think, removing the notion of Mind from the formation of that Form. You
seem to confine Mind to individual actions rather than also collective actions
- which is strange, since I would think that quantum entanglement involves a
communal interaction.
I don't think that your Mind and the Insect's Mind [and I acknowledge that Mind
functions in both]..are similar. That is, I don't see that the fact that the
Insect has no capacity for symbolic communication is due strictly to its Form -
though I acknowledge that its Form [lack of a complex brain] doesn't enable
symbolic communication. I'm suggesting that Mind cannot express itself in a
similar capacity in all its biological Forms. That is Mind, understood as
Reason/the Rational Will to Exist, operates in ALL biological forms but is it
with the same capacity?
I agree with your suspicion about 'information determinism' but I don't think
that Thirdness/general habits are the same as mechanical determinism - because
of the existence, also, of the other two modes.
I'll try to take a look at your article on Quantum Semiotics.
Edwina
On Tue 24/10/17 12:22 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
>”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it
>doesn't require a learning phase”
Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other
insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to
make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would “
define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of
options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic)
determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology
(anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff.
Insects are people too J An insect behaves as I would behave if I had an
insect’s body.
But there is another conjecture that I bring to bear on my reasoning, and it is
DNA entanglement (nonlocality). The basis for my reasoning is outlined in my
article, Quantum Semiotics
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63>
. DNA entanglement goes further in lifting us out of the notion of information
determinism, to immerse us in an alternative narrative where knowing how to be
(pragmatism “on steroids”) seems to be primary. This is the interpretation that
first struck me when I stumbled across this link on DNA replication
<http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought>
.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:01 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; 'Jeffrey Brian
Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way.
Yes, all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is
stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of
RE: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
>”After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it
>doesn't require a learning phase”
Good point, Edwina. But I conjecture that the butterfly’s body (or any other
insect’s body) sufficiently accounts for the predispositions that enable it to
make sensible choices from a reduced horizon of options. So yes, I would
“define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of
options'”. In other words, if there is any semblance of information (genetic)
determinism to be considered, then it would be confined to physiology
(anatomy). The rest… the choice-making, the survival… is pure mind stuff.
Insects are people too J An insect behaves as I would behave if I had an
insect’s body.
But there is another conjecture that I bring to bear on my reasoning, and it is
DNA entanglement (nonlocality). The basis for my reasoning is outlined in my
article, Quantum Semiotics
<http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/63>
. DNA entanglement goes further in lifting us out of the notion of information
determinism, to immerse us in an alternative narrative where knowing how to be
(pragmatism “on steroids”) seems to be primary. This is the interpretation that
first struck me when I stumbled across this link on DNA replication
<http://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought>
.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:01 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; Stephen
Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way.
Yes, all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is
stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of the
biological world]. I have put the knowledge base of most non-homo-sapiens as
stored genetically/materially rather than socially/conceptually. After all, a
tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a
learning phase, whereas the human species requires a long learning phase - and-
the development of a symbolic communication system to achieve that learning.
Would you define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced
horizon of options' ?
But regardless of the terms, isn't the function of this difference in the
nature of the knowledge base an important concept? The limited capacity to
change a knowledge base, and its removal from any attempts to change it by
storing it genetically rather than conceptually - means that the biological
realm has a worldwide stable continuity of organization. Only the human realm
can change - up to a point - both its biological and conceptual knowledge.
Edwina
On Tue 24/10/17 10:25 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
>”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has
>to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables
>continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an
>enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. ”
Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so
important.
However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we
are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be.
What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing
other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside
a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-body predispositions impact on the
reach of that horizon. A reduced horizon makes for simple, almost reflexive
choices that are tempting to write off as “instinct”. An expanded horizon, by
contrast, such as we have in human cultures, creates the illusion that we are
somehow different, unbounded by instinct. In principle, though, all living
entities are bound by exactly the same basic axioms, and the differences become
a question of degree. Many don’t see it that way, but my justification for this
relates to neural plasticity, and the impact that a mind-body’s experiences
have on how the brain is wired… all brains are neuroplastic.
Cheers
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; tabor...@primus.ca
<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')> ; Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - thanks for your outline.
My comments are [apart from my view that I don't agree that 'the Western world
is unravelling'] - but, imitation is the first basic component of 'continuity'.
The function of an
Re: RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
Stephen - interesting; I haven't thought of it that way. Yes, all organisms learn how to live, but in most cases, the knowledge base is stable and incapable of much change [which contributes to the stability of the biological world]. I have put the knowledge base of most non-homo-sapiens as stored genetically/materially rather than socially/conceptually. After all, a tiny butterfly knows how to live the instant it emerges; it doesn't require a learning phase, whereas the human species requires a long learning phase - and- the development of a symbolic communication system to achieve that learning. Would you define this stored knowledge base of the butterfly as 'reduced horizon of options' ? But regardless of the terms, isn't the function of this difference in the nature of the knowledge base an important concept? The limited capacity to change a knowledge base, and its removal from any attempts to change it by storing it genetically rather than conceptually - means that the biological realm has a worldwide stable continuity of organization. Only the human realm can change - up to a point - both its biological and conceptual knowledge. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 10:25 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. ” Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so important. However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be. What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-body predispositions impact on the reach of that horizon. A reduced horizon makes for simple, almost reflexive choices that are tempting to write off as “instinct”. An expanded horizon, by contrast, such as we have in human cultures, creates the illusion that we are somehow different, unbounded by instinct. In principle, though, all living entities are bound by exactly the same basic axioms, and the differences become a question of degree. Many don’t see it that way, but my justification for this relates to neural plasticity, and the impact that a mind-body’s experiences have on how the brain is wired… all brains are neuroplastic. Cheers From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca [1]] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM To: 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; tabor...@primus.ca [2]; Stephen Jarosek Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories Stephen - thanks for your outline. My comments are [apart from my view that I don't agree that 'the Western world is unravelling'] - but, imitation is the first basic component of 'continuity'. The function of an organism/species - is reproduction-of-type. Mimesis, or imitation is the most basic method of enabling this continuity. It provides Stability - for one cannot have intricate networking of species in the biological world if each generation is vastly different from the previous generation. So, imitation is a key component of stable continuity. With regard to your outline of the emotions of Firstness, I see your point, but, I reduce the emotion to only the Will-to-Exist which would be similar, to Desire-to-Be. That is, there is no other emotion such as fear of the Other, in my analysis of Firstness With regard to your use of imitation within Secondness - hmm - I see the point of Secondness within its Need for Limits, the need for differentiation from Others. So, I don't see imitation in this mode. I accept your use of imitation in tool-use, i.e., in developing the knowledge of how-to-live, but I think this is more a function of Thirdness. With regard to your use of imitation in thirdness - I would see that generalizing a habit, such that similarity of Type becomes continuous - requires imitation.- as a general mode. Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. Rather then evolve wings, this species invents the airplane. I think we need all three modes - the Firstness of imitation, the Secondness of differentiation and deviation, the Thirdness of continuity. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 4:52 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au [3] sent: While we are on the topic of categories… some
RE: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories
>”Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has >to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables >continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an >enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology.” Indeed! This is the most important insight of all, and why Peirce is so important. However, I’d go one step further than that… my own suggestion is that what we are saying here applies to all life. All organisms have to learn how to be. What one might typically categorize as instinct, in other animals, is nothing other than a reduced horizon of options (analogous to a goldfish living inside a small bowl instead of a wide ocean). Mind-body predispositions impact on the reach of that horizon. A reduced horizon makes for simple, almost reflexive choices that are tempting to write off as “instinct”. An expanded horizon, by contrast, such as we have in human cultures, creates the illusion that we are somehow different, unbounded by instinct. In principle, though, all living entities are bound by exactly the same basic axioms, and the differences become a question of degree. Many don’t see it that way, but my justification for this relates to neural plasticity, and the impact that a mind-body’s experiences have on how the brain is wired… all brains are neuroplastic. Cheers From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM To: 'Jeffrey Brian Downard'; 'Helmut Raulien'; tabor...@primus.ca; Stephen Jarosek Cc: 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories Stephen - thanks for your outline. My comments are [apart from my view that I don't agree that 'the Western world is unravelling'] - but, imitation is the first basic component of 'continuity'. The function of an organism/species - is reproduction-of-type. Mimesis, or imitation is the most basic method of enabling this continuity. It provides Stability - for one cannot have intricate networking of species in the biological world if each generation is vastly different from the previous generation. So, imitation is a key component of stable continuity. With regard to your outline of the emotions of Firstness, I see your point, but, I reduce the emotion to only the Will-to-Exist which would be similar, to Desire-to-Be. That is, there is no other emotion such as fear of the Other, in my analysis of Firstness With regard to your use of imitation within Secondness - hmm - I see the point of Secondness within its Need for Limits, the need for differentiation from Others. So, I don't see imitation in this mode. I accept your use of imitation in tool-use, i.e., in developing the knowledge of how-to-live, but I think this is more a function of Thirdness. With regard to your use of imitation in thirdness - I would see that generalizing a habit, such that similarity of Type becomes continuous - requires imitation.- as a general mode. Our species, homo sapiens, has no genetic knowledge. The human individual has to learn-how-to-live. This is certainly achieved by imitation. This enables continuity and stability. The lack of genetic knowledge gives this species an enormous capacity to change its lifestyle and technology. Rather then evolve wings, this species invents the airplane. I think we need all three modes - the Firstness of imitation, the Secondness of differentiation and deviation, the Thirdness of continuity. Edwina On Tue 24/10/17 4:52 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: While we are on the topic of categories… some time ago, we discussed the role of imitation with respect to pragmatism, and I recall that we arrived at a consensus that yes, imitation is important. But as we watch the western world unravel, I’ve been thinking more and more about the role imitation in this decent into chaos. Imitation is at the centre of it. If you are born into Christianity, or Islam, or conservatism, or liberalism, and if you choose to immerse yourself into one of these lifestyles, you will imitate its values. The spilling of blood or rule by governments is contingent, in the first instance, on imitation. So how do the categories apply to imitation? Allow me to suggest some possibilities: 1) Firstness: In my 2001 semiotica paper (The law of association of habits), I introduced the desire to be (analogous to Heidegger’s Dasein). The known and the unknown relate. Fear of the unknown provides a compelling motivation to imitate the known, in order to be. It applies, principally, to any living entity. Does it make sense to define this desire to be as the prime mover (or firstness)? It does, after all, account for other emotions, such as the fear of not being, or the fear of loss, or the fear of the unknown, or the desire for materialism, or the need to belong (conformity); 2) Secon
