Ben N., List: BN: While the conceptual framework you give makes great sense ...
Just to be clear, and to give credit where it is due, this conceptual framework is not "mine," it is Peirce's; or at least, it is my understanding of Peirce's. BN: For example, if you tell me that there is a barn in the next valley, I may say, based on my trust in you, that a barn exists in the next valley, but I have no brute knowledge of that; there is no firstness to my knowledge. Peirce defines what he means by "Experience" and "Brute" in "A Neglected Argument," as well. CSP: An "Experience" is a brutally produced conscious effect that contributes to a habit, self-controlled, yet so satisfying, on deliberation, as to be destructible by no positive exercise of internal vigour ... A compulsion is "Brute," whose immediate efficacy nowise consists in conformity to rule or reason. (CP 6.454) Anything "brute" is Secondness, not Firstness. The Experience that leads you to believe that there is a barn in the next valley is me telling you this, coupled with your habit of trusting me. BN: In other words, our common usage of "exists" extends far beyond what you call the "universe of brute reality." I am well aware of this, and it has tripped up some of the discussions here in the past, because there is no verbal form of "reality" in English to substitute for "exists." I am trying to explain and maintain Peirce's more precise usage. A possibility is real, but it does not exist unless and until it is actualized. A symbol is real, but it does not exist unless and until it is embodied. This is what I take Peirce to mean in what you quoted from CP 8.14 in your subsequent message, "It is a real which only exists by virtue of an act of thought knowing it"; he is referring to "whiteness" there, which is *real *apart from its instantiations, but *exists *only when instantiated. You cannot physically see the quality of whiteness, *per se*; only actual things that possess that quality. BN: What I am suggesting is that there is a vital difference between existence and being or beings. I think that Peirce would agree, and associate being with reality. Everything in all three Universes of Experience has Being, but only things and facts in the Universe of Brute Actuality exist. BN: The difference may be seen in two different uses of the word exists. On the one hand, the universe of brute reality exists out there, whether we have any knowledge of it or not. On the other hand, may we say that it does not exist for us until it interacts with us (as beings), and becomes real (to beings) through firstness, secondness, and thirdness. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but this sounds very much like nominalism, which is precisely what Peirce vehemently opposed throughout most of his life. BN: Thus I suggest that your formulation may be amended by reversing the words existence and reality to read: Existence consists of that which has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it has those characters; reality consists of that which interacts or reacts with beings capable of experiencing it (e.g., firstness, secondness, or thirdness)." This is the exact opposite of how Peirce defined the two terms. Reality is not limited to that which is Brute and Actual; it includes possibilities and laws. Reaction is paradigmatic Secondness, and pertains only to that which exists. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Ben Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jon, Jerry, Helmut, Kirsti: > > This chain of emails is one of the most valuable to me. Among other > things, I am a longtime student of St. Anselm, whom I believe to be much > closer to Peirce than has been noticed. > Jon, I am particularly grateful to you for both beginning this chain with > your question on thinking, as well as your most recent post where you > explain: > > Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that existence > is a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not everything > that is real exists. All three Universes of Experience are real; only the > Universe of Brute Actuality exists. Reality consists of that which has > whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes > that it has those characters; existence consists of that which interacts or > reacts with other things. Examples of what can be real without existing > include possibilities and qualities ( ), as well as laws and habits > (Thirdness); examples of what exists include actual individuals and > occurrences (Secondness). > > [This is in red because it is my custom to put quotes from previous > emails in red, and quotes from other sources in blue.] > > What I want to ask you about seems to be this: While the conceptual > framework you give makes great sense, there still seems to be a disjunction > regarding the word "exists." For example, you write,"All three Universes > of Experience are real; only the Universe of Brute Actuality exists." But > it seems that in this formulation, we can never know anything that "exists" > until it becomes "reality" for us, presumably through a brute event > occurring to a being, which then gives rise to firstness, secondness, and > perhaps to thirdness. > > Now, I am not intending to disagree with what you wrote at all. But merely > to question that there seems to be a disjunction between the ontological > statement and epistemological understanding. > > For example, if you tell me that there is a barn in the next valley, I may > say, based on my trust in you, that a barn exists in the next valley, but I > have no brute knowledge of that; there is no firstness to my knowledge. > Similarly, > scientists can postulate that dark matter exists, despite the fact that it > cannot be detected, but only inferred. > In other words, our common usage of "exists" extends far beyond what you > call the "universe of brute reality." > > Later in the passage above, you write: "Reality consists of that which > has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or > believes that it has those characters; existence consists of that which > interacts or reacts with other things." > > I sense a contradiction in this. It seems that by your earlier statement, > it is existence--not reality--which "consists of that which has whatever > characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it > has those characters," while reality only comes into being when brute > reality interacts with a being capable of *experiencing *its firstness > and then its secondness and thirdness. > > What I am suggesting is that there is a vital difference between existence > and being or beings. The difference may be seen in two different uses of > the word exists. On the one hand, the universe of brute reality exists out > there, whether we have any knowledge of it or not. On the other hand, may > we say that it does not exist for us until it interacts with us (as > beings), and becomes real (to beings) through firstness, secondness, and > thirdness. > > Thus I suggest that your formulation may be amended by reversing the > words existence and reality to read: *Existence* consists of that which > has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or > believes that it has those characters; *reality* consists of that which > interacts or reacts with *beings capable of experiencing it (e.g., > firstness, secondness, or thirdness)."* > > In other words, I am suggesting that in order to fully understand the > difference between existence and reality, we need to bring in the > distinction between existence and being. Thus it is possible to reconcile > the "universe of brute actuality" as the general statement "that which > exists," from the universe of reality, which only comes into being either > in the mind of the universe (which appears to be different from its brute > actuality), or in minds within the universe of brute actuality (which > likewise appear to be different from the universe of brute actuality). > > I am not sure I am expressing this well, but my point is concerned with > adding being (and beings) into the mix as necessary to understand existence > and reality. > > Ben Novak >
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
