https://outlivinglife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/information_hose.jpg
Best, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, List: > > Thank you for sharing these comments. I will need to take a look at the > text of Heidegger's speech, and then decide whether I have anything > worthwhile to say about it myself. For now, I am simply renaming the > thread topic for the sake of clarity going forward. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Ben Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Jon, Edwina, Helmut, Jerry, Gary: >> >> This email chain, for me, has been one of the most interesting and >> useful. I greatly appreciate the efforts of all of you to arrive at the >> clarity of the last few emails in the chain. The reason I am writing this >> is because it seems to me that we have reached quite a turning point. For >> we are suddenly in the realm of talking about what metaphysics is, which >> brings right back around to the Neglected Argument. >> >> Let me explain. Helmut raised the question: >> >> HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, >> something, and something is not nothing. >> >> He also referenced Hegel's logic. >> >> But a whole lot of water has gone under the bridge since Hegel's insight >> into Nothing, and quite frankly, I think we need to take it into account in >> talking about what Peirce is doing. For it is possible that later thinkers, >> independently of Peirce, and sometimes from different disciplines or >> traditions of thought, may have something to offer to the discussion--even >> to the understanding of Peirce. >> >> On the subject that Jon so capably raised in his emails today quoting >> Nathan Houser, which I quote here simply to save you the trouble of going >> back through the chain: >> >> 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. >> >> >> Now, many of the discussants have taken this quite further, and have >> entered into a discussion of the nothing. >> >> Well, I would like to propose the relevance here of Martin Heidegger's >> maiden speech, "What is Metaphysics?" In that speech, Heidegger deals >> directly with the issue Helmut raised shortly after Jon's email: >> >> 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? >> >> Now that is precisely the issue that Heidegger deals with in his speech, >> and claims a couple of things of immediate relevance here. First, he claims >> that this nothing is the subject matter of a whole discipline and field of >> thought, i.e., metaphysics. Second, he shows how this nothing can not only >> be the subject of a discipline, but also something identified and >> experienced in daily life. >> >> But he even does more than that. He argues that the nothing can be >> experienced by persons in certain moods, which he identifies as anxiety and >> boredom. In a later work, *Introduction to Metaphysics*, he identifies >> more moods, such as extreme happiness (e.g., on the day of one's wedding >> for example). I suggest that this list may not he exhaustive, but may >> include the "play of amusement" that Peirce refers to in the Neglected >> Argument. >> >> If such a possibility is entertained, then there may be a basis for >> seeing a major clarification resulting from relating Heideggher's >> discussion of the Nothing to Peirce's comments as summarized by Houser, and >> further elaborated by Jon, as well as seeing a connection between >> Heidegger's understanding of nothing as the subject matter of metaphysics, >> and Peirce's Neglected Argument. >> >> Here is Heidegger's maiden speech at the University of Marburg, "What is >> Metaphysics?" >> >> http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Heidegger,Martin/Hei >> degger.Martin..What%20Is%20Metaphysics.htm >> >> Ben >> >> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> Telephone: (814) 808-5702 >> >> *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and >> a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >>> *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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 > [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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
