1) Pure zero is NOT the continuum of Thirdness. Because Thirdness is made up of 
general habits.
I agree that 'nothing in particular necessarily resulted' - i.e., there was no 
agential Mind and no necessary model of the universe. Our universe could have 
spontaneously generated some other atom/chemical/whatever as basic.

2) I don't confine 'freedom' to persons. Molecules and cells have it! Birds, 
animals, insects..have freedom.

3) The worst thing about a religious [or other?] group is that it is made up of 
flawed people? I would say that is one of the best things, for 'being flawed' 
means that we are aware of our existentiality as 'merely a version of a 
Type'...and can enjoy our differences.

Edwina


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Helmut Raulien 
  Cc: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


  Helmut, List:


    HR:  Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, 
something, and something is not nothing.


  This led me to think of the following quote from Peirce.


    CSP:  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; )


  What he wrote next is consistent with a point that I have been trying to make 
recently.


    CSP:  Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of 
things?  But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing 
in particular necessarily resulted. (CP 6.218)


  The key word here is necessarily, since obviously Peirce's cosmology requires 
that something resulted.  He went on to contrast his approach with Hegel's, and 
then gave this conclusion.


    CSP:  I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless 
freedom.  That is, nothing according to deductive logic.  But such is not the 
logic of freedom or possibility.  The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is 
that it shall annul itself.  For if it does not annul itself, it remains a 
completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a completely idle potentiality 
is annulled by its complete idleness.  I do not mean that potentiality 
immediately results in actuality.  Mediately perhaps it does; but what 
immediately resulted was that unbounded potentiality became potentiality of 
this or that sort--that is, of some quality.  Thus the zero of bare 
possibility, by evolutionary logic, leapt into the unit of some quality.  This 
was hypothetic inference. (CP 6.219-220)


  Here he used the word "freedom," which is again something that we attribute 
to persons.  He suggested that, "Mediately perhaps," bare possibility 
(Firstness) results in actuality (Secondness); i.e., something (or Someone) 
else must mediate (Thirdness) that transition.  He then referred to the 
immediate process of "unbounded potentiality" becoming "the unit of some 
quality" as "hypothetic inference," which can only take place within a mind (or 
Mind).


    HR:  So I want to remain an agnostic.


  I can understand the sentiment--I often say that the worst thing about any 
religious group is that it is made up of flawed people--but I hope that you 
will continue inquiring.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

    Edwina, Jon, Gary, list,
    I think I am an agnostic. "Everything could come from nothing" (Edwina) 
reminds me of having read (merely) the (very) beginning of Hegels, I think it 
was "Science of logic". Hegel showed how dialectics leads to the evolution from 
"nothing" to "something", and then on to all other things, like life. I have 
understood it like: "Nothing" is a thesis, which cannot exists of its own, 
because existence requires that it is something, i.e. "The nothing", which 
means that "nothing" is "something", and there is a something else, which is 
not nothing, as antithesis. Or something like that. I found this argumentation 
quite catchy. Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, 
something, and something is not nothing. But now I am not still so sure of this 
logic. Because who said, that a nothing has to exist to be nothing? Maybe it 
did not exist, but merely was real? A real but nonexistent nothing might remain 
in its sleeping mode forever, if no God shows up. I cannot pin it down, but 
have the feeling, that the difference between real and existing requires 
theism, and if you do not see the difference, one (eg.I) may be an agnostic. I 
am, because I thought I had understood the terms "existing", "real", "being" 
(this thing about the predicate), but somehow lost it again. Like faith: It is 
an on-off-relationship somehow. I feel I cannot pin down God. But I like this 
state better than to be somebody who claims to know God well. These folks are 
dangerous, you just have to switch on the TV. So I want to remain an agnostic.
    Best,
    Helmut


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -----------------------------
  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 .




Reply via email to