Clark, List: At this point, it seems appropriate to shift this conversation to the spin-off thread that I started last week based on Ben Novak's post and the ones to which he was responding, which I have reproduced below. As we have previously discussed under the heading of Peirce's Cosmology, he explicitly referred to multiple "Platonic worlds" as one of the stages preceding the emergence of this actual universe of existence. I have suggested that the former correspond to the coalescing chalk marks on the blackboard, which then serve as a whiteboard for the "discontinuous mark" that represents the latter.
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 11:28 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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*. > > It’s worth noting that the word ‘nothing’ is ambiguous in most western > languages. An obvious example of this is the infamous debate between > Heidegger and Carnap over nothing. Carnap and most positivists came away > thinking Heidegger a loon because of statements like ‘the nothing nothings.’ > > If one reads Peirce, particularly the passages from the late 80’s that > Edwina brought up, as a neoplatonist then he’s clearly much more in that > Heidegger camp. The main distinction is between nothing as ‘empty set’ > versus ‘not a thing.’ With the neoplatonic conception you have ‘thingness’ > as ideas, soul, spirit and so forth. You then have the One which typically > is a nothing that is not a thing but clearly also not an empty set. In some > forms of platonism in late antiquity such as Plotinus’ you also have prime > matter which is conceive of as not a thing but a place to receive things > and make them possible. All of this ends up going back to the Timaeus and > the notions there - especially that of chora or khora which is usually > translated as receptacle or space. > > When you look at Peirce subject is a kind of place for predication. So > chaos for him is this receptical or space. It’s very much the prime matter > that was common in neoplatonism (and which obviously arose out of Aristotle > as much as Plato’s Timaeus) > > I’d add that Duns Scotus’ conception of the *ouisia *of God as nothing > might also be playing into Peirce’s conception. I don’t know if anyone’s > done anything on that though. > > One of the quotes you provided also is quite platonic in its nature. > > 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) > > This is very much a kind of relationship of prime matter to the One in > neoplatonism. The big shift from Platonism is that prime matter is put > first rather than the One. Although this inversion of the usual process of > emanation can be found in various types of neoPlatonism as well despite its > more heretical character. It’s also common in 20th century post-Husserlian > phenomenology. > > I should add that 6.215-219 is well worth reading on this subject as well, > especially relative to the Heidegger/Carnap debate. > > Again, let me note that this part of Peirce’s thought seems to me to be > the most controversial. I’m not sure it’s necessary for his thought as a > whole. > > "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. > > In a similar way, I might add, to us from a platonic point of view without > Soul there is nothing. Peirce’s notion of thirdness is very similar to the > third emanation in Plotinus’ system of emanations. It’s interesting that > for some, such as Proclus, each of these is a separate god. It’s also here > that the late platonists tended to inject a lot of Stoicism into their > thought. The third god who is at the level of soul is the sensible world > that is able to think discursively. > > Going back to the Neglected Argument I should note that a lot of how > Peirce talks about God parallels Proclus. But this isn’t an area I’m really > that well versed. Peirce clearly is well read on these authors though. They > do form an important context for a lot of his thinking. (Although shouldn’t > be reduced to it) While it’s not an area I’m that well versed on, some have > dealt with the issue. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=zHDnlYfrbMcC&pg=PA85&dq= > peirce+proclus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirysj57PPPAhVH1WMKHc-HD > fgQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=peirce%20proclus&f=false > > The relationship of abduction to Proclus in that paper is quite > interesting. (As an aside, this is the same book that Kelly Parker’s paper > on Peirce as a neoPlatonist appears) > 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 .
