Jeff, Jon, Gary F., List, I'm relieved and gratified to learn -- both in comments on List and off -- that I apparently didn't misrepresent Peirce's blackboard narrative, at least not too much. I still tend to think of it as an 'analogy', while Jon reminds us Peirce referred to it as a diagram. Perhaps it is a diagram of an analogy.
Jeff wrote: Thank you for sharing this interpretation of the Blackboard analogy. I wanted to ask about one assertion: "Sure, this is all conjectural -- there is certainly no scientific means to explore it" and offered three alternatives of what I might have been suggesting by that comment. JD: (1) at the present time, there doesn't appear to be any scientific means to explore or test Peirce's cosmological conjectures about the evolution of order, including the spatial and temporal ordering of things in the very early universe; GR: The short answer is that I do *not* think of the blackboard diagram as representing "the very early universe" but, rather, as imagining a possible proto-universe anterior to any actual universe, and in that proto-universe there is no space nor time. JD: (2) at the present time, we can't conceive of any possible tests, but we might be in a better position to come up with some in the future; GR: I cannot conceive of any possible tests ever being devised. These are Peirce's metaphysical conjectures which may resonate with some scientists and other scholars, but not with others. In some past threads, and in a recent one, Jon discussed the universe as a single vast sign, an evolutionary semiosic continuum, arguing that it requires an object outside that universe which that single vast sign represents, which it seems to thrust into real being and (in some way that I'm not clear about) energize and sustain it . Although I find much to admire in Jon's explanation of a universal semiosic continuum, I noted on List that a question remained. Actually, there may be several. First, is the semiosic sign that is the cosmos a system? If it is a system, how is it that its object is viewed by Jon as outside that system? If an object of the universe as semiosic continuum can be located, was it located as such by Peirce *and,* if so, outside the vast universal sign? *Must* that semiosic object be God or is there some other agency possible? It has also been argued that God is the Ultimate Interpretant: if this is so, how can God be both object and interpretant, especially if God is seen as outside the semiosic system, or at least, outside the universal sign? Is it legitimate to extrapolate from Peirce's characterizing the universe as a vast argument/Symbol/poem (all to be found in his writings) to a theological conclusion -- his? (or yours) -- but rather to one more amenable to contemporary science? JD: (3) there are no such tests, as a matter of principle, that can be conducted to confirm one hypothesis and disconfirm another perhaps because we are talking about a "time before time". GR: Exactly. As a matter of principle it seems to me that Peirce's -- or anyone's for that matter -- metaphysical conjectures about a "time before time" will never be open to scientific confirmation nor disconfirmation. Nor will many-universes, etc. I personally find Peirce's proto-cosmological musings valuable: they help me think about the genesis of the universe which, from what I understand of most versions of Big Bang theory, comes out of nothing. For Peirce, pure nothingness is not a possible state, indeed it is not even conceivable except as the negation of being. We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this *pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility.* There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom. So of potential being there was in that initial state no lack. CP 6.217-218 Couple this idea with the blackboard analogy and, for me, you have a more persuasive idea of the proto-origins of our universe. Testable? No. Never. Best. Gary R On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 5:23 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, List, > > Thank you for sharing this interpretation of the Blackboard analogy. I > wanted to ask about one assertion: "Sure, this is all conjectural -- there > is certainly no scientific means to explore it." > > Are you suggesting that: > (1) at the present time, there doesn't appear to be any scientific means > to explore or test Peirce's cosmological conjectures about the evolution of > order, including the spatial and temporal ordering of things in the very > early universe; > or > (2) at the present time, we can't conceive of any possible tests, but we > might be in a better position to come up with some in the future; > or > (3) there are no such tests, as a matter of principle, that can be > conducted to confirm one hypothesis and disconfirm another perhaps because > we are talking about a "time before time". > > For my part, I think we'll be in a better position to explore and put > scientific hypotheses to the test if we can make them more exact--and the > blackboard analogy is part of an argument is designed to do just that. As > such, I think Peirce is trying to show us a path to follow in our > scientific inquiries to address the concerns you are raising > > --Jeff > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 15, 2025 8:37 PM > *To:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>; Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Blackboard analogy for the 'time' before > time was > > List, Gary F, Jon, > > A while back in a lengthy post discussing the Blackboard analogy that > Peirce offers in the penultimate lecture of the 1898 series, I attempted to > outline. that cosmological lecture. Indeed, in my view the blackboard > analogy is* profoundly* cosmological and, as such, helps illustrate > Peirce's vision of a realm of *potential dimensions and qualities* *not > yet manifest*, imagining the conditions for *a universe yet to come into > being*, to emerge as a cosmos, an *evolving semiosic continuum* > > I mentioned in my last post in the thread on Planck and Peirce on mind > that I thought that perhaps it would be helpful to review that analogy > since some here may not be familiar with it, while others might have some > fresh thoughts regarding it, especially in the context of the idea that > Peirce proposes: that mind is fundamental, matter being derivative. See: > CP 6.203 - 209, The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898, published as > *Reasoning > and the Logic of Things.* > > In the penultimate lecture in the 1898 series we are asked to imagine a > clean blackboard representing 'the original vague potentiality': an > indeterminate, undifferentiated continuum of possibilities. That is, the > blackboard doesn't represent absolute nothingness, but rather *everything > possible in general*, a proto-field of generative possibilities which may > become an existent universe. > > Peirce starts with a clean blackboard (a kind of sheet of assertion), what > I've called an ur-continuity (thus, he presupposes 3ns as being 1st) upon > which anything might be drawn (by whom? Peirce seems to suggest, by divine > Mind). Earlier he had called this 'time before time', that is, before the > putative 'Big Bang' (which, of course, has become dogma among mainstream > physicists, although questioned by some physicists such as Roger > Penrose, Lee Smolin, Paul Steinhardt, and Neil Turok). Earlier in his > cosmological musings he had hypothesized this 'time before time was' as a > *tohu > bohu*, an absolute nothing. But later in his cosmological reflections he > reconceives what he originally thought to be pure nothing to be, rather, a > *swarming > of potential characters* (in the 1898 lectures he calls these "Platonic > ideas" of which there are an infinite number, only some of which will > appear in any given universe which might come into existence). These might > inform a universe depending on which characters might be drawn together on > the ur-continuity of the blackboard. > > As Peirce describes it, drawing a chalk mark on the chalkboard introduces > a discontinuity separating the surfaces of the blackboard and the chalk > mark. The boundary between blackboard and white chalk is neither of these > nor both together, but a 2ns: the reaction between the two. The chalk mark > is a 1ns, something wholly new springing into being, their interaction a > 2ns. The appearance of 'something' (the chalk line, the 1ns) isn't out of > an 'absolute void' but, rather, springs from the infinite possibilities > within the original continuity. As more characters start to 'stay' on the > blackboard and interact (2ns), what one might call 'proto-habits' are > formed. So 3ns is 1st (cf. the discussion of involution in 'The > Mathematics of Logic') before a universe comes into being; 3ns in two > senses: 1. the original continuity, the ur-continuity upon which 1nses play > and interact', and 2. the habits formed as some of these characters stay, > i.e., 'stick' to the blackboard. > > Thus a universe such as ours doesn't start in pure 1ns as Peirce first > imagined, but emerges with 2ns and incipient habits (3ns) within the > context of *the original continuity* (3ns) represented by the blackboard, > thus creating the conditions for a universe such as ours to come into > being: the emergence of energy, time, and space, as Gary Fuhrman wrote. > Once this happens a universe such as ours becomes ever more rational as > laws evolve. (As already hinted at, Peirce suggests that in this > time-before-time there is the possibility of any number of universes > emerging -- a kind of early 'many universes' theory). > > Sure, this is all conjectural -- there is certainly no scientific means to > explore it. But unless one is ready to believe that time, energy, and space > simply emerge from nothing (which is basically what the Big Bang theory > amounts to even given some 'quantum fluctuation', etc. alternatives), one > has to imagine a *time before time*, exactly what Peirce did in > conceiving the blackboard metaphor. Whether one finds his argumentative > persuasive or not is another matter. > > I would encourage anyone who hasn't yet read the penultimate chapter of > Peirce's * Reasoning and the Logic of Things* (or even CP 6.203 - 209) to > do so since what I've written above includes several of my own ideas and > terminology. > > For me, the blackboard analogy suggests an ur-continuity upon which divine > agency can ‘scribe’ characters, including the universal categories, as > proto-cosmic potential. Some selection of the infinite variety of these > were made manifest into our trichotomic semiosic universe: an analogy for > primordial indeterminacy *to become* structured cosmos. > > For an extended discussion of and an interesting expansion of the > blackboard analogy see: Jon Alan Schmidt's “A Neglected Additament: Peirce > on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God.” Signs (vol. 9, 2018), esp. > section 5. Peirce’s Diagrammatic Discourse, pp. 11–14. > > Best, > > Gary R > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
