Edwina, Thank you for that well thought out reply.
I agree with much of the concerns you raise. I would, though, note that it is not entirely belief and belief alone. When it comes to the atemporal, which is what is most important here, one needs no more belief that such is necessary than one needs for "time". That is, logically, whatever the universe is (and things within it are) temporally, they must, also, be beyond temporality. Necessity, for example, with respect to Einstein's gunpowder analogy. If something MUST happen, one can conclude, logically (genuine, as it were, in logic and so it moves, too, into mathematic), that is already has happened*. This letter of his, quite famous, forms the original basis of quantum theory. Now Einstein would disagree with much of what is alleged by quantum science, but he would understand the general atemporal nature of necessity with respect logic/mathematics and even, I dare say, existence. *The negation of time qua the certainty of explosion — all units of time, if the same, so to speak, are as likely, if we say it must explode in three days, as all other units of the same duration (and, of course, as it MUST happen, we can conclude that it has happened). There is a lot of mathematical work on this topic which goes beyond my own base, but I know it insofar as I ought to in philosophical terms. Of course, as is known, and I am not starting a thread on it or in anyway asking for people to jump in as it has been done to death and I still remain without my favorite method of proof (though i am satisfied of the logical necessity) —as is known, I admire Peirce greatly but disagree with him with respect to the noumenal. The noumenal, too, is necessarily atemporal. Now what I find interesting, of course, is that two scholars here, neither of which is in any respect in favor of the noumenal, nonetheless understand, within their own traditions/framings, the necessity of the atemporal. And you can get there with pure reason (no pun on Kant). TL;dr It really isn't "belief" — the atemporal is necessary and you can demonstrate it logically many different ways. Some here are engaged in that task, and in my own way, though not close to publication, I have been doing work along those lines too. Though you would be right to caution philosophers and academics who urge a theory/framework for which they have not the capacity to demonstrate logical proofs (there i agree with you completely). Best as always, Jack ________________________________ From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 3:17 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jack Cody <[email protected]> Cc: Gary Richmond <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]>; Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ontological and Cosmological Continuity (3ns) Jack, list The problem I have with a metaphysical approach is that such are based on and require: belief. That is, the metaphysical approach can be extremely and totally valid, logically, but that doesn’t make its premises or conclusions objectively real. They remain to the core : beliefs- and require an emotional commitment and even, in many cases, an assertion of right vs the wrong beliefs of others…since, as noted, there is no objective proof. . We have seen the results of such in all rival conflicts, in religious authority, even - in societal and political norms and rules. The outline proposed by Jeff, on the other hand, requires not merely logic but also, evidentiary evidence for its conclusions. The question then moves to- does our species require such an approach to life, ie, does it require a metaphysical foundation? ..ie..a foundation without empirical evidence but one that rests purely on belief? Edwina On Jan 15, 2026, at 6:40 AM, Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: GARY: In any event, I take your response as encouragement that this logico-metaphysical line of thought is worth pursuing much further. The fundamental idea can be rather simply expressed, but, I think, it may be hard to comprehend without some investigative study, and its implications have just begun to be explored: Continuity does not arise within time; rather, time, law, and cosmological order arise within continuity. ME: Indeed, Gary, and Jon has made some valuable comments thereafter. Yes, it's more than worthy of pursuit. Any viable metaphysics must deal with the atemporal which one can indeed "prove" (infer necessarily). The framework around the necessity of the atemporal, then, is what becomes vital. Jon and I do not agree on certain, I'll call it "catechistic", issues, but he puts God (who is atemporal if one believes in God, and also temporal, too) as the ultimate source and thus that upon which, qua Truth, we would converge (ultimately). Now if one is secular, we can swap out God for Truth (qualitatively) and lose not so much (Augustinian in compatibilism here) I suppose what I'm saying is that whilst Jon and I have had numerous disagreements, and in treatments of what is atemproal, no doubt, we won't agree entirely, as it goes, I am happy (or more than happy) to see people with the capacity to do so taking the atemporal necessity very seriously. It's something that science simply cannot do (beyond time and space, literally, is that which empirical methods and empirical meaning-making materials can do very little to understand — instead, I argue, we must use logic, and serious logic, to prove a necessary inference of the atemporal and then it's a market place of ideas in terms of how we frame this within extant metaphysical frameworks). Good to see this being done here, whether I agree or not with framing — the endeavor is clearly ongoing. That's makes me more than happy. Best, Jack ________________________________ From: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 7:47 AM To: Jack Cody <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]>; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Ontological and Cosmological Continuity (3ns) Jack, Jon, Jeffrey, List, Thanks for your response, Jack, especially as your emphasis on the metaphysical atemporal gets exactly to the heart of the matter. It would seem that we agree that any viable metaphysics has to take seriously what it means to speak of a “before time,” again, not an achronological fiction, but the non-temporal condition of intelligibility (to express it more logically than ontologically). I'd hoped to suggest in my post that Peirce’s metaphysics has not been explored nearly as fully as it deserves to be, especially considering his strictly logical and scientific way of looking at all of science including, of course, metaphysics. What distinguishes his metaphysics from anyone else's I've studied is that it is not merely speculative in the sense of not being supported by exacting scientific experience and experiment. In fact it is not only supported but, indeed, constrained by science as Peirce understood its method and ethics. His metaphysics grows out of, and remains a piece with his logic of inquiry, semeiotic, theory of categories, continuity theory, and his fallibilistic realism. That is why his arguments for an aboriginal, atemporal continuity is not some sort of a metaphysical 'fantasy' but an abduction as to the requirements of intelligibility itself. In this regard, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Jon Alan Schmidt's work in logic and metaphysics. While like you, I don’t always agree with him -- and he most certainly doesn't always agree with me! -- yet, his posts to Peirce-L and his papers on many a Peircean topic especially, most recently, his ongoing work on semiosic continuity strike me as among the most carefuly research, carefully thought out, most penetrating treatments of the topics he's undertaken that I know of -- certainly as deep as and perceptive as anything I’ve encountered, including, no doubt, my own feeble attempts. And further, I think that the reason that Jon is such a good metaphysician is because he is such a good logician. And if I may add a personal note: Although I've made this point on- and, when necessary, off-List a number of times, what I respect and pay attention to and, yes, try as moderator to protect, especially because I am learning from it so that I know the value of it, is Jon's philosophical work. In any event, I take your response as encouragement that this logico-metaphysical line of thought is worth pursuing much further. The fundamental idea can be rather simply expressed, but, I think, it may be hard to comprehend without some investigative study, and its implications have just begun to be explored: Continuity does not arise within time; rather, time, law, and cosmological order arise within continuity. That claim has been and will be resisted, of course. But for we Peircean (and even some partial-Peirceans) it cannot be dismissed tout court without also dismissing the full ramifications of the scientific realism which is integral to Peirce's entire philosophy. Best, Gary On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 4:36 AM Jack Cody <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Gary R, list Just a quick response. More praise than critique. In your long post you hit on some crucial aspects with respect to what would be any valid metaphysics. I speak of the atemporal. This is vital. I don't agree with all Jon has to say here but do agree that it is vital one includes and understands what it is this means within all philosophical and scientific contexts. So yes, more applause from me for your efforts here. Best Jack Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Gary Richmond <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:20:58 AM To: Peirce List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Ontological and Cosmological Continuity (3ns) List, Jeff, Jon, This post is an attempt to address the tension that can arise when discussing Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology -- in which laws (3ns) grow out of chance (1ns) and habit-taking (3ns) with the effects those produce (2ns); and this in contrast with the metaphysical ontologyseen in the 'blackboard' diagram discussion in the 1898 lectures, Reasoning and the Logic of Things (hereafter, RLT, the standard abbreviation of the lecture series as published) in which a primal continuity (3ns) is outlined as the precondition, actually the sine qua non, of any universe even possibly coming into being. To be clear, I will not be arguing the correctness of one view as opposed to the other but, rather, suggesting that, 1st, both views were held by Peirce and, 2nd, that they are not contradictory. This is to say that while the cosmological analysis is basically correct from the perspective of the categories as 'operative' in this existing universe, it misses something metaphysically essential and which Peirce speculated on in Lecture 8 of RLT. The problem seems to be that, since Peirce speaks metaphysically in RLT of the logical necessity of an aboriginal continuity (3ns “before Time was”), how can he also logically claim cosmologically that law (3ns), as it appears in this existing universe, emerges relatively categorially 'late', that is, 'after' 1ns and 2ns? (I should note that it has been suggested in this forum by Jon that from the involutional perspective of 3ns involving 2ns/1ns, 2ns involving 1ns, that they likely appeared simultaneously). The tentative answer to this question lies, I believe, in distinguishing two senses/levels of continuity as 3ns, namely, the Ontological and the Cosmological (in my view it's unfortunate that Peirce did not clearly distinguish these two senses of 3ns qua continuity). One sense, which I've been calling Ontological 3ns, represents continuity as such, the blackboard meant as a diagram of an aboriginal continuum that is not temporal, not causal in Peirce's sense of representing physical laws. Ontological 3ns -- aboriginal, metaphysical continuity -- does not involve actual events, physical laws, etc. To say, as Peirce does, that this ontological continuity has its being “before time" is to say that its reality (note, not its existence) is a non-temporal precondition of the possibility of a cosmos coming into being at all. At this juncture I think it is important to recall that Peirce distinguishes between reality and existence, which distinction informs the context of what I'm discussing. Reality is characterized categorially essentially by 3ns so, continuity as such, involvies possible lawfulness, mediation, intelligibility. Existence, on the other hand, is characterized categorially especially by 2ns, brute reaction, the hic et nunc (albeit 'in time' governed by 3ns and necessarily involving 1ns as the qualities and characters of existence). Seen metaphysically, that which is "before time" is not an earlier moment 'happening' before cosmogenesis takes off, but that which is the precondition of anything -- including both the cosmological and the ontological categories (recalling that the ontological categories latter -- proto-1ns and proto-2ns -- mere possibilities for an existential universe -- some of which 'stick' on the metaphysical 'blackboard', that will be iterated, etc. Almost needless to say, some possible characters and qualities, from an infinite number of them, will never appear at all -- at least not in this cosmos. Within this aboriginal continuity, then, is proto-1ns (qualitative possibility as such) and proto-2ns (the possibility of otherness as such) within a metaphysical 'field' of possibility, the ur-continuity. This is the aboriginal continuum where, at this level, nothing in particular exists while everything in general is possible, to paraphrase a famous phrase of Peirce's. On the other hand there is, obviously, cosmological 3ns, that is, law and habit operative in time in our universe. This is 3ns within semiosis, specifically semiosic symbolicity involving all three categories. And since "symbols grow," it follows that the cosmos can evolve -- and obviously it has. When 1ns, as qualities, and 2ns, as brute action-reactions appear, time and habit-taking and law, as 3ns, appear with them 'simultaneously'. In other words, as existential events recur in time, habits are already beginning to form, some of which stabilize, some hardening into 'laws of nature' governing the existential being of the Universe. All of this is merely to say that there is no necessary contradiction between these two senses of 3ns just discussed. What is emergent as a cosmos is not primal continuity (not 3ns as such), but lawfulness within time. From a Peircean perspective, continuity does not come into existence; rather, it is the real ground of being. So, for Peirce, existential law is not the source of continuity; rather, it is continuity’s expression in time (necessarily involving both spontaneity and action-reaction). This existential order belongs to the temporal universe, not to the aboriginal continuum from which a universe might spring. What evolves is not continuity itself but, again, habit and lawfulness within continuous time. Again, this interpretation is congruent with Peirce’s distinction between reality (where 3ns dominates) and existence (where 2ns is dominant, but under the rule of 3ns). Peirce’s metaphysical–cosmological framework avoids the enigma of something arising out of nothing or, as one current theory would have it, arising from a chain of former universes. But that view only pushes the problem back: how did that very 1st universe arise? No doubt there are many who will reject Peirce's metaphysical abduction of "a time before time" out of hand, but for those who remain open to it, I believe it may prove not only metaphysically coherent, but ontologically useful. I would contrast Peirce's view with many, if not most, other theories of cosmogenesis, especially those that would make something -- a Universe! -- appear out of nothing, say, some quantum field (as an alternative theory to the Big Bang would have it; but, again, where did that come from?) Peirce's metaphysical-cosmological view of the continuity of 3ns as an intriguing complexus is, in my view, well worth further reflection by philosophers, cosmologists, and other scientists. 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]";>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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
