A paradox is also a relationship to external factors : truth and falsity. It asserts that a statement is True, when it is conventionally known to be False. True/False is a polarity. So, is Pierce saying that there's no such polarity as True/False? That all propositions are Maybes? I can see that in Enfernity (eternity/infinity) there is no such polarity as True/False, because everything exists only in Potential. But in the Actual world, we usually assume that all statements can be compared to some verifiable Fact, or axiomatic Truth. :smile:A polarity has external relation influence. A paradox does not. — Mapping the Medium
That sounds like my own BothAnd Principle, which assumes that all Paradoxes are ultimately resolved in Enfernity -- the ideal realm of G*D (imagined as the Whole, of which our world is a Part). But in the real space-time world, for ordinary humans, paradoxes must be resolved by Logic and Data. And we don't usually spend much time contemplating such circular thought-problems as Russell's Paradox, the Liar's Paradox, or Zeno's paradoxes. So, what's the point here? What is the real-world application of "Polarity", as opposed to "Paradox"? :chin:This is a proposition to which the principle of the excluded middle, namely that every symbol must be false or true, does not apply. — Mapping the Medium
Yes. That's always a problem in human communication. But usually, we can only infer the "tacit" meaning. Does Peirce's "Polarity" allow us to read minds? :brow:you will see that Peirce also points out that there is a difference between what is explicitly asserted versus what is tacitly asserted. — Mapping the Medium
So, how is that obvious fact, a "mode of existence"? Actor and Reactor are factors in causation. Are those factors the modal difference? Perhaps Positive and Negative modes of existence? How does that distinction affect our understanding of True Reality versus Apparent Reality? :confused:The part of his statement that you are leaving out is "So in the action and reaction of bodies, each body is affected by the other body's motion". — Mapping the Medium
Materialists usually assume that "what is real" is "that which physically exists". So, how does Peirce distinguish those "modes of existence"? :cool:'what is real' and 'what physicallyexists. — Mapping the Medium
"we must acknowledge the role of energy in the brain. Energetic activity is fundamental to all physical processes and causally drives biological behavior. Recent neuroscientific evidence can be interpreted in a way that suggests consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness." — Fuckiminthematrix
In my Enformationism thesis, the common denominator between Energy & Consciousness is Information. As noted in the quote from Bergson, "the elementary unit of information is a difference". In mathematics, a difference is indicated by a colon (X : Y) or a division slash (X / Y). And the difference is interpreted in the human mind as Meaning or Proportion.consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain — Fuckiminthematrix
Hence, no need to assume that energy-exchanging atoms are conscious of "what it's like" to be a fundamental particle of matter. :smile: — Gnomon
The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness." — Fuckiminthematrix
Materialists usually assume that "what is real" is "that which physically exists". So, how does Peirce distinguish those "modes of existence"? :cool: — Gnomon
I can see that in Enfernity (eternity/infinity) there is no such polarity as True/False, because everything exists only in Potential. — Gnomon
But in the Actual world, we usually assume that all statements can be compared to some verifiable Fact, or axiomatic Truth. :smile: — Gnomon
What is the real-world application of "Polarity", as opposed to "Paradox"? :chin: — Gnomon
Does Peirce's "Polarity" allow us to read minds? — Gnomon
Ha! I guess you really dislike philosophy forums, which are mostly wrangling about Semantics. Maybe you can teach us to think in terms of Semiology (sign, object, interpretant). Apparently, Semantic meanings differ depending on the "interpretant". Which is why the threads on this forum often go-off in different directions. I haven't read-up on Semiology, partly because most of what I've seen appears more academic than realistic. But, in the Enformationism thesis, words, signs & symbols are not the only "information delivery vessels". :smile:that I really dislike thinking about semantics. :shade:
I'd much rather think about 'information delivery vessels' (semiotics). :grin: — Mapping the Medium
Maybe you can teach us to think in terms of Semiology — Gnomon
I haven't read-up on Semiology, partly because most of what I've seen appears more academic than realistic. — Gnomon
What does that "incompleteness" (shortcoming, fallibility) have to do with "modes of existence". The fact that humans are not omniscient, does not deter us from shorthand thinking in terms of True vs False. Is Non-omniscience (human) a different mode from Omniscience (G*D)?Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem — Mapping the Medium
Why doesn't he just call it "Potential", as Aristotle did? I guess Potency must always come before Actuality.Yes. That is Peirce's Firstness (Potential) — Mapping the Medium
Ah! Now I'm beginning to see the sequence.This relates to Peirce's Secondness (Actuality) — Mapping the Medium
How does Chance affect the practical application of theories? We usually assume that to put a theory into practice, either it will work or it won't. But of course, the test may also be inconclusive (incomplete). But why dwell on the Maybes, instead of the Yes or No results? Is there something to be learned from our misses?Your comment also points to Peirce's Pragmaticism,
differing from standard Pragmatism because it includes the addition of chance (Tychism). — Mapping the Medium
I assume that, by "habits", he doesn't mean pre-conceived notions? Perhaps, he means "Patterns", which might fit into the Potential - Actual - Pattern sequence? Some refer to Natural Laws as merely "habits" or "regularities or "tendencies" or "inertia", rather than absolute binding unbreakable Rules handed-down by God. Is Peirce implying that Nature accidentally falls into certain un-planned grooves? Is that the same as Random Chance? Perhaps that's a Non-law, or Law-breaker. In my thesis, I see an important role for Randomness, to allow for some freedom from Determinism, from Destiny. There are meaningful Patterns, even in Random Chaos.Peirce's Thirdness (Law, which also includes habit — Mapping the Medium
To me, that sounds like Hegel's Dialectic, which synthesizes opposing forces. Two prior vectors are merged into a third vector, which becomes the new "growth direction".We perceive differences in the polarities (opposites). We reach conclusions habitually in inductive reasoning, as we go about our lives on autopilot. It is also the momentum that creates the 'tendency' to take habits, and because of that, it propels evolution forward by taking on that growth direction. — Mapping the Medium
Are you referring to Pierce's three laws as "modes of being". Please elaborate. :smile:understanding these irreducible modes of being — Mapping the Medium
Please elaborate. — Gnomon
Semiology - Semiotics - Semiosis ; Pragmatism - Pragmaticism ; Synechism - Cynicism ; Structuralism - Deconstructionism ; Semantics -Sheemantics! It's all post-Greek to me. :joke:No. I can't teach anyone to think in terms of Semiology. As I mentioned previously, Semiology is the semiotics of Ferdinand de Saussure, not C.S.Peirce. — Mapping the Medium
In what sense is Semiotics more realistic than Semiology? How are these extremely abstract analyses of Signs & Symbols, and deconstructions of Texts & Meanings applicable to concrete reality? Since I'm rather lazy, I have skipped over these tedious texts in my reading of philosophy. I need a translation into the vernacular to dumb it down to my level. Teach me! :cool:You are correct Saussurean semiotics IS NOT realistic! — Mapping the Medium
Thanks for the citation. I posted some of my thinking that appears in the paper a while back in a thread on "The Reality of Time." Here is a link to a complete online version that anyone can view: https://rdcu.be/b9xVmTemporal Synechism: A Peircean Philosophy of Time — Mapping the Medium
Light bulb moment - I searched 'Peirce Triad and Trinity' and lo. — Wayfarer
One of the biggest difficulties I run into is that so many people read something someone else has written about Peirce, and that writer may have only read something that someone else has written about Peirce, and so forth. It's kind of like a gossip chain. By the time the story goes 'round, it is completely incorrect. — Mapping the Medium
Just as it happens today, gems of thought were tossed aside for the politics of the day, and we are still paying the price. — Mapping the Medium
Karatani subtly interrogates the democratic commitments of Western philosophy from within and argues that the key to transcending their contradictions lies not in Athenian democracy, with its echoes of imperialism, slavery, and exclusion, but in the openness of isonomia." — Mapping the Medium
'Triadicism' or 'three-ness' is an archetypal theme in various cultures. That doesn't undermine Peirce in the least, but it does provide a wider context in which to interpet that fundamental idea of his. — Wayfarer
Peirce's much later 'triadic' schema, and its possible connection to the 'trinity'. — Wayfarer
also note his conception of 'agapē' as a driving force in evolution.// — Wayfarer
Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychastic evolution, or tychasm, anancastic evolution, or anancasm, and agapastic evolution, or agapasm. The doctrines which represent these as severally of principal importance we may term tychasticism, anancasticism, and agapasticism. On the other hand the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism.
All three modes of evolution are composed of the same general elements. Agapasm exhibits them the most clearly. The good result is here brought to pass, first, by the bestowal of spontaneous energy by the parent upon the offspring, and, second, by the disposition of the latter to catch the general idea of those about it and thus to subserve the general purpose. [—] Just so, tychasm and anancasm are degenerate forms of agapasm.
Far from being a pragmatist in the currently accepted sense, [Peirce] seems much more of a Platonist:
Belief is the willingness to risk a great deal upon a proposition. But this belief is no concern of science which has nothing at stake on any temporal venture, but is in pursuit of eternal verities, not semblances to truth, and looks upon this pursuit, not as the work of one man's life, but as that of generation after generation indefinitely.[
Here we may have some indication of the familiar Peircian idea of convergence at the end of inquiry, but if so, it is certainly not presented as a definition of truth, but as a hope that rational inquiry will lead us to truths that depend not on our minds but on nature:
The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real,--the object of its worship and its aspiration.
And one final Platonic morsel:
The soul's deeper parts can only be reached through its surface. In this way the eternal forms, that mathematics and philosophy and the other sciences make us acquainted with will, by slow percolation, gradually reach the very core of one's being, and will come to influence our lives; and this they will do, not because they involve truths of merely vital importance, but because they [are] ideal and eternal verities.
Now I find these declarations not only eloquent but entirely congenial; but they have a radically anti-reductionist and [scholastic] realist tendency quite out of keeping with present fashion. And they are alarmingly Platonist in that they maintain that the project of pure inquiry is sustained by our “inward sympathy” with nature, on which we draw in forming hypotheses that can then be tested against the facts. Something similar must be true of reason itself, which according to Peirce has nothing to do with “how we think.” If we can reason, it is because our thoughts can obey the order of the logical relations among propositions — so here again we depend on a Platonic harmony. — Thomas Nagel, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion
no stranger to a broadly Platonist outlook - — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.