Gary, thanks for the interesting link. Yes, the tension between the known and the unknown is indeed foundational to all enquiry and cognition. But there are “levels” of appreciating its significance. At the deepest levels, it relates to the creative void (Sunyata). From my paper, currently under review:
“This idea finds deep resonance in Eastern metaphysical traditions, for example in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, by Nāgārjuna, which is the foundational text of the Madhyamaka School of Buddhism (Garfield, 1995). Their notion of the creative void is expressed in the concept of śūnyatā (emptiness). Here, the void is not an absence but a creative silence—an ontological openness from which form emerges. In this light, the quantum void and the cognitive horizon are both expressions of the same relational logic: association as the principle by which potential is shaped into meaning.” I know that Peirce extended his thinking to “matter hidebound with habit”… hence my curiosity as to what he might have had to say about the void, with its tension between the known and unknown as the most primal expression of semiosis. sj From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 3 November, 2025 2:58 PM To: [email protected]; 'Stephen Jarosek' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories - tension between known and unknown Peirce’s Century Dictionary definitions of the categories seem quite definitive to me: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/pheno.htm#05 . As for “the tension between the known & the unknown”, is that not “foundational” to all inquiry, indeed all cognition? Love, gary f Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of "Stephen Jarosek" Sent: 3-Nov-25 06:51 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Categories - tension between known and unknown List, I posted a comment to a forum recently, in which I introduced the following conjecture: “I conjecture that the tension between the known & the unknown is foundational to the semiotics of CS Peirce, and that these tensions are integral to the phenomenology of ‘mind stuff’”. My question for our scholars… how justified is this conjecture, in the context of Peirce? I’ve been lurking in this forum for years, and there was one time, years ago, when some excellent definitions of the categories were posted and discussed. Sadly, I neglected to record them, thinking that I’ll easily find them when I’m ready. Lol - yeah, fat chance, serves me right. Among those definitions I recall some mention of “tension” with the known/unknown relating to the categories. This tension between the known and the unknown is very easily demonstrated in culture, and I do precisely that in my article (relates to “knowing how to be”): https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2020/00000027/00000003/art00003 [It is also likewise almost trivial to establish this known/unknown tension in all living entities, not just humans in culture. In QM, it becomes more interesting] Would appreciate some pointers, thanks. sj
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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]";>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.
