Edwina, List: Thanks for clarifying. I mainly just wanted to emphasize Peirce's consistent usage, and the conclusion that he ultimately drew from it.
Regards, Jon On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, - to offer up a collection of quotes, via a digital search of the > term 'chaos' from the Peirce collections, doesn't negate that I was saying > the same thing as he was with regard to the primoridal 'nothing. So, > please don't try a 'gotcha' post. > > This term, the 'absence of order' as a meaning of 'chaos, is the *popular > current meaning of *chaos. That *current usage of the term* is what I > was referring to as a response to Kirsti's post where she also was > referring also to the current very common use of the term. I was NOT > referring to Peirce's usage. And as I said - I consider the primordial as > nothing. Peirce is quite specific about that in 1.412 - and as you point > out, I refer to that quote very often. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 10:43 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: After all, chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order > within a collection of bits of unorganized matter. > > > Not according to Peirce--he explicitly held that chaos is *nothing*. > > CSP: The original chaos, therefore, where there was no regularity, was in > effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which nothing existed or really > happened. (CP 1.411; 1887-1888) > > CSP: The first chaos consisted in an infinite multitude of unrelated > feelings. As there was no continuity about them, it was, as it were, a > powder of feelings. It was worse than that, for of particles of powder some > are nearer together, others farther apart, while these feelings had no > relations, for relations are general. (CP 8.318; 1891) > > CSP: Without going into other important questions of philosophical > architectonic, we can readily foresee what sort of a metaphysics would > appropriately be constructed from those conceptions. Like some of the most > ancient and some of the most recent speculations it would be a Cosmogonic > Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning--infinitely > remote--there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without > connection or regularity would properly be without existence. (CP 6.33; > 1891) > > CSP: But I only propose to explain the regularities of nature as > consequences of the only uniformity, or general fact, there was in the > chaos, namely, the general absence of any determinate law. (CP 6.606; 1893) > > CSP: If what is demanded is a theological backing, or rational > antecedent, to the chaos, that my theory fully supplies. The chaos is a > state of intensest feeling, although, memory and habit being totally > absent, it is sheer nothing still. Feeling has existence only so far as it > is welded into feeling. Now the welding of this feeling to the great whole > of feeling is accomplished only by the reflection of a later date. In > itself, therefore, it is nothing; but in its relation to the end it is > everything. (CP 6.612; 1893) > > CSP: In the original chaos, where there was no regularity, there was no > existence. It was all a confused dream. (CP 1.175; c.1897) > > CSP: Efficient causation without final causation, however, is worse than > helpless, by far; it is mere chaos; and chaos is not even so much as chaos, > without final causation; it is blank nothing. (CP 1.220; 1902) > > CSP: Generality is, indeed, an indispensable ingredient of reality; for > mere individual existence or actuality without any regularity whatever is a > nullity. Chaos is pure nothing. (CP 5.431; 1905) > > CSP: Had a purposed article concerning the principle of continuity and > synthetising the ideas of the other articles of a series in the early > volumes of *The Monist* ever been written, it would have appeared how, > with thorough consistency, that theory involved the recognition that > continuity is an indispensable element of reality, and that continuity is > simply what generality becomes in the logic of relatives, and thus, like > generality, and more than generality, is an affair of thought, and is the > essence of thought. Yet even in its truncated condition, an > extra-intelligent reader might discern that the theory of those > cosmological articles made reality to consist in something more than > feeling and action could supply, inasmuch as the primeval chaos, where > those two elements were present, was explicitly shown to be pure nothing. > (CP 5.436; 1905) > > "Chaos" in Peirce's usage means no regularity, no determinacy, no > existence, no happenings, no relations, no connection, no law, no memory, > no habit, no causation, no generality--*sheer* nothing, *blank* nothing, *pure > *nothing--and that is precisely how he characterized mere feeling > (Firstness) and action (Secondness) without continuity (Thirdness). In > other words, unless the blackboard (Thirdness) is already in > place--"theological backing, or rational antecedent"--there can never be a > spontaneous chalk mark with its whiteness (Firstness) and boundary > (Secondness) in the first place. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Kirsti, list: >> >> Kirsti, I like your outlines of embryos and the 'firstness' of Feelings. >> [I think that more research should be done on the bonding in utero between >> multiple birth embryos, i.e., twins, triplets etc]. >> >> I also have a problem with the notion of primordial chaos. After all, >> chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order within a collection >> of bits of unorganized matter. But, following Peirce's 1.412, I see the >> primordial as - nothing. As undifferentiated mass. As 'indeterminancy' >> [1.409, 412] . NOT matter, but mass. >> >> As mass, which is in a mode of Firstness, it can start to take on habits >> - and your example of the heartbeat of the mother affecting the >> embryo-fetus is a good one. Therefore, in my view, Thirdness is not a >> priori or non-immanent, as some would suggest, but, a fundamental immenent >> aspect of the conversion of mass to matter. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> >> To: "Auke van Breemen" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:20 AM >> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's >> Cosmology) >> >> Dear Auke, >>> >>> I got very delighted by your response! Right now, I have very >>> little time, but I wish to share some of my thoughts on and about it. >>> >>> First: The idea of primordial chaos is very, very popular. Even >>> so popular that one should get suspicios in front of the popularity. It >>> is commonly taken as granted that all human as well as other living >>> beings start our individual lives in the midst of chaos. >>> >>> Even Prigogine's work Time and Change in Modern Physics has been >>> often classified as a CHAOS theory, though it is nothing of the kind. >>> >>> All human beings start as embryos, developing into fetus. But, as >>> I have shown in detail, there is no chaos necessarily involved in >>> the experiential flow of an embryo, nor of a fetus. Heart beat, for >>> example gives a rhythm even to the earliest modes of experiencing. First >>> comes the heartbeat of the mother. It is something FELT, not something >>> KNOWN. The rhythm is primordial. The syncopatic rhythm of hearbeat thus >>> feels unanimously as something associated with eternity. (Which is fact to >>> be revealed and confirmed by phenomenological studies)In the >>> Peircean sensse, not in the sense offered by European phenomenologies. >>> >>> An utterly neglected part of CSP's conception of feeling can be found >>> in his critical comments on Kant and his threepartite division of >>> mind. Peirce states that Kant, in outlining the old division mistorted >>> the notion of FEELING, he (Kant) had derived from Tetens, his teacher. >>> >>> CSP then states that he has retained the meaning Tetens gave. >>> >>> Now, during all the decades of participating in Peirce >>> related conferences, I have never met a Peircean scholar who would >>> even recognize Tetens. - I took the time to get a copy of main works >>> by Tetens. - Nor did any of the Kantians I ever met know Tetens. (Which >>> I find most peculiar). >>> >>> The change Kant made was to take pleasure and pain as the >>> basic division. This mistake was later made immensely popular by Freud. >>> >>> Another mistake in the twists of history comes from distortions >>> in interpreting the peripathetic axiom originating from Thomas >>> (De Veritate): >>> >>> "Nihil in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu." Later to become >>> a corner stone of nominalism. >>> >>> However, in medieval times the Latin "in sensu" (in the senses) >>> carried a very different meaning than in modern times. "Sensus communis" >>> was a part and parcel of the meaning.( Also "intellectu" carried a different >>> meaning.) >>> >>> As we all know CSP took back "common sense". >>> >>> In medieval times, with Christianity, sensus communis had a very >>> clear meaning. Concience, the moral sense, given by God. With the teaching >>> that one should consult one's heart. in order to feel and hear the voice of >>> God. - Note: to feel and hear IN THIS ORDER. >>> >>> For Aristotle, just as well, the sensus communis (i.e the >>> Greek counterpart) was situated in the heart. But of course not with >>> the Christian overtones. >>> >>> It was in modern times that the senses were restricted to the >>> five special senses. And the sixth sense was doomed into oblivions >>> of mysticism. - But it was only after sciences (and humanities) >>> were secularized, that mysticism was rejected. >>> >>> And the herintance of history was then cleansed of this stuff. So we >>> are passing on a distorted view of history. Chemistry, let >>> alone electromagnetism were originally taken as mystical and occult. - >>> About which CSP gives a sensible account of the why's (see e.g. >>> Moore's collecion of CSP's mathematical writings). >>> >>> Electricity still remains a mystery to be solved. But it is a >>> mystery already tackled (by Jerry L.C. Chandler, for instance). >>> >>> Well, this is just to get started. I hope to continue later... >>> >>> These are very complicated issues. >>> >>> But: Feelings do not classify themselves. They do not appear with >>> name tag. >>> >>> With warmest wishes! >>> >>> Kirsti Määttänen >>> >>> Thus feeling comes first. >>> >>> >>> Auke van Breemen kirjoitti 23.10.2016 19:35: >>> >>>> Dear Kirsti, >>>> >>>> As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of >>>> voice. In discussions I always try to be short as possible. Maybe this >>>> time to my detriment. I do thank you for te opportunity you offer to try to >>>> become more clear. >>>> >>>> I will add some words between the lines. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> Dear Auke & al. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP >>>> did not share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> AvB: If your criticism holds, I agree. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting >>>> point was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, >>>> even before I had any knowledge whatsoever of Peirce. >>>> >>>> This is were my work, since 1970's comes in. In English their is >>>> not much to rely on. See, however, my astract for Applying >>>> Peirde conference, at Helsinki 2007. Available in internet.I have >>>> provided Eugene Halton with the handout in the conference. Which he has >>>> quoted several times. Lately in a book chapter of his. >>>> >>>> The problem with your approach, as with almost all others, lies >>>> in taking ADULTS as the starting point. And then taking science as the the >>>> more restricted starting point. - No one, however is bourn as *a Fichtean >>>> philosopher* , as Marx end Engels pointed out, nor as an adult, nor as a >>>> scientist. >>>> >>>> Firstness comes first. Both in real life, in metaphysics and >>>> in semiotics. - C.S Peirce did not cherish this händicap. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AvB: I do not think here we disagree, at least on this level of >>>> detail of discussing matters. His animal examples show that he even >>>> didn’t confine to childhood, but extended the thought to an >>>> evolutionary scale. With his distinction between a logica utens and a >>>> logica docens and his architectonic of sciences, each of the cenoscopic >>>> sciences preceding the special sciences and being devoted to: About >>>> positive phenomena in general, such as are available to every person at >>>> every waking moment, and not about special classes of phenomena. Does not >>>> resort to special experiences or experiments in order to settle theoretical >>>> questions. >>>> >>>> What I did intend to state is that it is when we look at a sign >>>> that inscribes itself, the question of the connection between the >>>> two divisions of interpretants comes into clear sight. For, I would >>>> add now, it is then that we must ask for the connection between >>>> both trichotomies of interpretants. If Peirce wouldn't have been of the >>>> opinion that nothing is lost if we don't pay attention to the apprehension >>>> of the sign as an object, cf 8.2.1, he, as a consequence, probably could >>>> have made the same arrangement as Van Driel, which is the arrangement I >>>> propose. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> Sheets of assertion serve as ground (in the more general sense) >>>> only within teh system of existential graphs. Which is the only mode >>>> of graphs CSP comleted to his satifaction. >>>> >>>> It does not, however, follow that he consided them to be the key, >>>> the part and parcel of his diagrammatic method. >>>> >>>> It is just the easest to grasp for in cultural cnditions >>>> where nominalistic ways of thought retain the upper händ. >>>> -- >>>> AvB: agreed. I did not argue that. We always must keep the >>>> distinction between an utens and a docens in mind. The existential graphs >>>> are part of the docens, as an (iconic) reflection on the utens of >>>> reasoning. De Tienne's sheets of description (phenomenology), if possible >>>> to shape diagrammatical, will be different. As is our (besides me, Sarbo >>>> and Farkas) diagrammatic KiF-proposal for semiotics. To my great surprise, >>>> and thanks to the late Irving Anellis, Peirce anticipated our proposal with >>>> his x-box arrangement of the 16 Boolean relations, arranged from FFFF to >>>> TTTT . This passage from primordial soup to a response only makes sense if >>>> it is conceived as a process, the response mediating state and effect. The >>>> process in between being triadic in itself. But, of course, my "self" image >>>> may be at fault. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> Eugene Halton has written an excellent paper on Peirce and >>>> the distorted view Morris spread around early on. The article titled >>>> " Situation, Structure and ... * I also find valid´, even excellent. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> AvB: I indicated some of Morris' distortions short in my "The >>>> semiotic Framework: Peirce and Stamper". Many early bird information >>>> scientists were introduced to Peircean semiotics through Morris, as >>>> Ronald Stamper and his group was. I experience my talks with them as >>>> an exchange between fundamental research and application. In use >>>> of technical terminology we may differ, in way of looking, the similarities >>>> prevail. Also in mastery of semiotics a subdivision between docens and >>>> utens can be made. The utens pointing the way for the docens or at least >>>> delivering content. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> I personally came across the dominance of Secondness by makind >>>> a thorough inspection on Umberto Eco and his references to Collected Papers >>>> in his book Theory of Semiotics. I was to make a selection for a study >>>> cirle on CSP. Quite a reluctant one, for that matter. It was late 1970's. >>>> >>>> It was only later that I realized how narrow and misleading was >>>> Eco's presentation. - It still seems to have the upper hand. In one form >>>> or another. >>>> >>>> Existential graphs are all about Secondness. The other parts never >>>> got completed by CSP. Not even outlined, at leasta in the selections so far >>>> published. >>>> --- >>>> >>>> AvB: For me it is more important that the existential graphs have >>>> an alpha, a beta and a gamma part, and that semiotics has a >>>> small classification with ten sign types, a middle with 28 and a >>>> Welby classification with 66 sign types. Of which Bernard Morand has >>>> argued that the small classification is part and parcel of the >>>> extended. Which suggests an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics. An >>>> idea that makes sense to me if I contemplate: 1. The sheet as a sign with >>>> a description of its triadically arranged sign aspects in a >>>> dependency structure. 2. The sheet as a sign that gets inscribed by another >>>> sign and the process that leads to a response (knowledge). And 3. The >>>> sign interacting with another sign capable of interpretation >>>> in communication. >>>> >>>> K: >>>> All serious, devoted Peirceans know that triadicity forms the key >>>> to all Peircean thought. No taking Secondness as the one and only. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the >>>> order of things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge secondness >>>> is first. I would add, in the order of understanding thirdness is first, in >>>> that it is the triadically structured description of the process >>>> of dyadically related and interacting states and events, that must account >>>> for the response. Our KiF-model is a proposal. The relation between the two >>>> divisions of interpretants was key for me. The approach of Short and >>>> Stamper were the trigger. >>>> >>>> >>>> K: >>>> With you, Auke, I have had some rewarding exchange of >>>> communication early on, after I joined the List. >>>> >>>> This is why I take this time to comment your post. - You do as you wish. >>>> - I'll do the same after reading your response. If so happens >>>> that you'll write one. >>>> -- >>>> AvB >>>> I do thank you for your responses and wish you all the best! >>>> >>>> Auke van Breemen >>>> >>>> My very best wishes to you! >>>> >>>> Kirsti Määttänen >>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
