Jon, list
1) I disagree that pure energy is 'something'. I consider it as aspatial and
atemporal to be nothing.
2) I don't agree that the 'blackboard' exists, and as a homogeneity - it is not
the same as Thirdness, which is habit. The blackboard has no habits.
3) I don't think the pure chance is inexplicable. Peirce considers it [1.410] a
fundamental component [along with 2ndness and 3rdness] of the universe.
4) I agree - with Peirce and Aristotle - that randomness and spontaneity are
not the same. Again, Firstness, which is spontaneity is a fundamental principle
of the universe.
5) The blackboard, is BEFORE the three categories. Peirce even says it is
'utter vagueness' - and that's nothing to do with the three categories.
6) I don't think that self-generated means 'inexplicable'. It means what it
says: self-generated. The 'utter vagueness' suddenly 'compressed' in
spontaneity into a 'particle'..as outlined in 1.412.
i certainly don't accept 'other-generated' for then, we have to go to 'what
generated this other power'?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: Pure undifferentiated energy so to speak.
That sounds like something, rather than nothing.
ET: Peirce assumes all three categories as 'fundamental elements' - acting
upon each other from the beginning.
Except that the clean blackboard is there before any chalk mark appears on it.
ET: That blackboard has no categorical mode in its makeup. No Firstness,
no Secondness, No Thirdness.
According to Peirce, it represents a continuum, which is a paradigmatic
example of Thirdness.
ET: When I draw a line - well - where in the world did I and my action
come from????Outer space?
You know (and disagree with) my answer to that question. How does a chalk
line come about, if no one is there to draw it? I assume that your answer is
pure chance, which makes it inexplicable, and thus unacceptable to Peirce.
CSP: To undertake to account for anything by saying baldly that it is due
to chance would, indeed, be futile. But this I do not do. I make use of
chance chiefly to make room for a principle of generalization, or tendency to
form habits, which I hold has produced all regularities ... I attribute it
altogether to chance, it is true, but to chance in the form of a spontaneity
which is to some degree regular. (CP 6.63; 1892)
For Peirce, chance in this context is not randomness, it is spontaneity--a
characteristic that we routinely attribute to persons, not merely events, as
something that "is to some degree regular."
ET: The white chalk line is a Firstness. Not the blackboard.
We agree on this. If the blackboard is not Firstness, and--despite
representing a continuum--is not Thirdness, then what else could it be? Surely
not Secondness, since in the beginning there is nothing else with which it
could react. There are only these three categories, so we have no other
options.
ET: The universe then self-generated and self-organized using the basic
fundamental three categories.
Self-organized is one thing, since we can observe that kind of behavior in
the universe now. Self-generated is another thing altogether; again, it
effectively renders the origin of the universe inexplicable.
Regards,
Jon
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Jon, list: I guess we'll just continue to disagree but I don't think the
outline is really that clear in Peirce's writings. I consider from his work,
that the universe began with 'nothing', in the sense that there was no
determination, no agenda, ..never mind no actualization. Pure undifferentiated
energy so to speak.
1) Peirce's origin seems to be 'in the utter vagueness of completely
undetermined and dimensionless potentiality" 6.193. Now a good question - is
this akin to Firstness? My answer to this is: No.
My problem with this is that I don't consider the categories as realities
-in-themselves but only as modes of organization of matter/mind. That is - they
don't, in my readings, seem to even function until AFTER the appearance of
matter/mind. So- I don't see this as Firstness.
2) Peirce writes; 'the evolution of forms begins or, at any rate, has for
an early stage of it, a vague potentiality; and that either is or is followed
by a continuum of forms having a multitude of dimensions too great for the
individual dimensions to be distinct. It must be by a contraction of the
vagueness of that potentiality of everything in general but of nothing in
particular, that the world of forms comes about" 6.196.
I read the above 'continuum of forms' as an outline of the operation of
Thirdness in a mode of Secondness. Does this mean that this original 'utter
vagueness' is Thirdness-as-Secondness? I don't see this either, since my view
of Thirdness is that it is a post hoc process, acting as habit-formations. And
as such, it is not 'utter vagueness'.
3) So- I don't see that any of the categories have a 'pre-existence' so to
speak. He does suggest, in 6.197 that our current sense-qualities [Firstness]
are 'but the relics of an ancient ruined continuum of qualities'...and that
this 'cosmos of sense-qualities...had in an antecedent state of development a
vaguer being, before the relations of its dimensions became definite and
contracted" 6.197.
So- my reading of this is that 'the relations of its dimensions' refers to
the three categories, which are quite specific in their nature and function.
These appeared AFTER that 'vaguer being' .....The 'general indefinite
potentiality' 6.199 doesn't seem to describe either Firstness or Thirdness.
And Peirce is specific that the emergence of existence didn't come about by
'their own inherent firstness. 'They spring up in reaction upon one another,
and thus into a kind of existence" 6199.
Peirce assumes all three categories as 'fundamental elements' - acting upon
each other from the beginning. But - again, the pre-categorical world doesn't
seem to me to be either Firstness or, as you claim, Thirdness.
4) That blackboard has no categorical mode in its makeup. No Firstness, no
Secondness, No Thirdness. When I draw a line - well - where in the world did I
and my action come from????Outer space? The white chalk line is a Firstness.
Not the blackboard.
Again- my reading of the emergence of the universe is that the three
categories are post hoc fundamental elements. And what was 'there' before was
obviously 'not there' [there was no time or space]...just...vagueness. The
universe then self-generated and self-organized using the basic fundamental
three categories.
That's as far as i can go!
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: So- I argue that indeed, everything could come from nothing, via
the actions of self-organization, as outlined by Peirce in the earlier
sections... 1.412.
Indeed, Nathan Houser's introduction to Volume 1 of The Essential Peirce
(http://www.peirce.iupui.edu/edition.html#introduction) provides a similar
summary of Peirce's cosmology, as follows.
NH: In the beginning there was nothing. But this primordial nothing
was not the nothingness of a void or empty space, it was a no-thing-ness, the
nothingness characteristic of the absence of any determination. Peirce
described this state as "completely undetermined and dimensionless
potentiality," which may be characterized by freedom, chance, and spontaneity
(CP 6.193, 200).
NH: The first step in the evolution of the world is the transition
from undetermined and dimensionless potentiality to determined potentiality.
The agency in this transition is chance or pure spontaneity. This new state is
a Platonic world, a world of pure firsts, a world of qualities that are mere
eternal possibilities. We have moved, Peirce says, from a state of absolute
nothingness to a state of chaos.
NH: Up to this point in the evolution of the world, all we have is
real possibility, firstness; nothing is actual yet--there is no secondness.
Somehow, the possibility or potentiality of the chaos is self-actualizing, and
the second great step in the evolution of the world is that in which the world
of actuality emerges from the Platonic world of qualities. The world of
secondness is a world of events, or facts, whose being consists in the mutual
interaction of actualized qualities. But this world does not yet involve
thirdness, or law.
NH: The transition to a world of thirdness, the third great step in
cosmic evolution, is the result of a habit-taking tendency inherent in the
world of events ... A habit-taking tendency is a generalizing tendency, and the
emergence of all uniformities, from time and space to physical matter and even
the laws of nature, can be explained as the result of the universe's tendency
to take habits.
Again, this account hinges on the plausibility of attributing "agency" to
"chance or pure spontaneity," and "self-actualizing" power to "chaos." It
requires that "the three universes [of experience] must actually be absolutely
necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" (CP 6.490), which I find to
be absurd. Houser's use of the word "Somehow" is telling, in my opinion; these
presuppositions are supposed to contribute to an explanation of the origin of
everything from nothing, and yet they are themselves inexplicable! As I have
said before, Peirce would never countenance this, because it effectively blocks
the way of inquiry.
CSP: Now, my argument is that, according to the principles of logic,
we never have a right to conclude that anything is absolutely inexplicable or
unaccountable. For such a conclusion goes beyond what can be directly
observed, and we have no right to conclude what goes beyond what we observe,
except so far as it explains or accounts for what we observe. But it is no
explanation or account of a fact to pronounce it inexplicable or unaccountable,
or to pronounce any other fact so. (CP 6.613; 1893)
CSP: The third philosophical stratagem for cutting off inquiry
consists in maintaining that this, that, or the other element of science is
basic, ultimate, independent of aught else, and utterly inexplicable--not so
much from any defect in our knowing as because there is nothing beneath it to
know. The only type of reasoning by which such a conclusion could possibly be
reached is retroduction. Now nothing justifies a retroductive inference except
its affording an explanation of the facts. It is, however, no explanation at
all of a fact to pronounce it inexplicable. That, therefore, is a conclusion
which no reasoning can ever justify or excuse. (CP 1.139, EP 2.49; 1898)
CSP: ... the postulate from which all this would follow must not state
any matter of fact, since such fact would thereby be left unexplained. (CP
6.490)
Although Houser cites CP 6.193 and 6.200, he does not incorporate the
blackboard discussion that comes just a few paragraphs later, which Peirce
explicitly intended to clarify his "wildly confused" preceding comments (CP
6.203). The "original vague potentiality" is not nothing; it is, rather, "a
continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions," which "the clean
blackboard" represents diagrammatically with only two dimensions. The
appearance of the first chalk mark then represents "the transition from
undetermined and dimensionless potentiality to determined potentiality." There
is not even "a Platonic world," let alone "a world of events, or facts," until
multiple chalk marks acquire the habit of persistence, as well as additional
habits that merge them into "reacting systems" and aggregates thereof. It is
only when "a discontinuous mark" appears on the resulting whiteboard (as I am
calling it) that "this Universe of Actual Existence" comes about (NEM 4.345).
I think that my alternative account is much more consistent with Peirce's
stated desire "to secure to [T]hirdness its really commanding function" (CP
6.202). Although "Firstness, or chance, and Secondness, or Brute reaction, are
other elements, without the independence of which Thirdness would not have
anything upon which to operate," nevertheless Thirdness is in some sense
primordial--continuity (Thirdness) is prior to spontaneity (Firstness), and
habituality (Thirdness) is prior to actuality (Secondness).
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Jon - the difference between us is not merely theism/atheism - where
the former accepts an a priori agency - but, where the latter [might] include
not an a priori agency but instead, argues for self-organization.
So- I argue that indeed, everything could come from nothing, via the
actions of self-organization, as outlined by Peirce in the earlier sections...
1.412.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: And that can be acceptable even if one defines these atemporal
aspatial Platonic world[s] as nothing for in a very real sense, they WERE
'nothing' - being aspatial and atemporal.
Only if you presuppose that only that which is spatial and temporal
can be "something." Peirce does not impose that requirement; in his
terminology, the Platonic worlds are real, even though they do not exist.
ET: I don't see why continuity and generality require a
'super-order and super-habit'.
According to Peirce in CP 6.490, it is because otherwise, "the three
universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter
nothingness"; that is, "A state in which there should be absolutely no
super-order whatsoever." But in such a state, absolutely nothing is absolutely
necessary; in fact, there cannot be any Being whatsoever, since "all Being
involves some kind of super-order ... Any such super-order would be a
super-habit. Any general state of things whatsoever would be a super-order and
a super-habit."
ET: I think this is a basic disagreement among those of us who are
theists vs non-theists!
Probably so. It seems to come down to whether one finds it plausible
that everything could have come from nothing.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Gary R, list
That's a nice outline.
With reference to the Platonic world[s] ...plural...of which only
ONE has been existential - I'm OK with that. And that can be acceptable even if
one defines these atemporal aspatial Platonic world[s] as nothing for in a
very real sense, they WERE 'nothing' - being aspatial and atemporal.
With regard to Jon's point: Continuity is generality, and
generality of any kind is impossible in the absence of super-order and
super-habit; i.e., the Reality of God. [see ** below]...
I don't see this; I don't see why continuity and generality require
a 'super-order and super-habit'. I think they merely require self-organization
of order and habit and Peirce outlines this in 1.410. That is, order and habit
emerge WITHIN the particularization of matter. They don't pre-exist. I think
this is a basic disagreement among those of us who are theists vs non-theists!
Edwina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
