Jon - as Clark has been trying to point out, you and I are locked in
terminological difficulties. Your insistence that YOUR use is identical with
that of Peirce's use - is simply your own opinion.
My reading of Peirce is that all three categorical modes only function within
Relations. Firstness is NOT 'real' in the sense of it being a generality [ie.,
the reality of the laws of Thirdness] and it does exist as a state of
'existentiality; i.e., as a quality, a feeling, an openness, BUT, this state is
itself an experience, entire in itself, and as such, it exists within that
experience of its fullness. There is no such thing as an unembodied Firstness!
Since it is a state of experience, then, it must be embodied. It is simply
'complete', so to speak and not open to the Otherness of analysis or reaction.
You confine 'existence' to Secondness - which is, I feel, too narrow an
understanding of the three categories and of the term 'existence'.
I disagree that 'pure nothing' is Firstness and Secondness in the absence of
Thirdness. I agree that without Thirdness - it would be chaos, but i don't see
this as PURE nothing. After all, 'the original chaos, therefore, where there
was no regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which
nothing existed or really happened". 1. 411. My reading of that, is that there
was no matter in a mode of Firstness or Secondness in this 'original chaos' -
no 'existences' and no 'feelings'. Nothing.
Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
Once again, I find your use of terminology inconsistent with Peirce's.
Firstness is real, but does not exist. It has no Relations, because any
Relation requires Secondness. "Pure nothing" is the chaos of Firstness and
Secondness in the absence of Thirdness. Accepting any matter of fact--such as
the origin of our existing universe--as inexplicable is unacceptable, because
it blocks the way of inquiry. Nothing new here, so I will leave it at that.
Regards,
Jon
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
I think that 'actualization' and 'cause' are two entirely different actions.
With regard to Firstness, I see it, as a spontaneous state of existence
which might then act upon/be reacted to.., in the 'fullness of this state'. The
point of all the categories is that they operate within Relations; they are not
isolate in themselves. Firstness, as that spontaneous state of existence [which
might dissipate in a nanosecond if it doesn't bond/relate to another
entity]...can provide a novel form of existence.
For example, a spontaneous mutation of a cell might be accepted by other
cells and might become part of the organism's nature. Or, might not be
accepted and its energy-content would dissipate.
Or, a novel mode of transportation [Uber] might suddenly develop and might
spread to other domains. Or, like many a new invention - it might disappear in
a month.
The causality of Firstness is the Relations that the novelty ir provides
has on other organisms/entities. It can actually cause/effect changes in the
larger system.
Yes, I see the universe as self-emergent and self-organizing - and refer to
1.412 for the Peircean outline of these actions. But I don't see this as a
transition from Firstness to Secondness, for I don't consider that the
pre-universe was in any categorical mode [ie, not in a mode of Firstness,
Secondness or Thirdness. It was simply nothing].
Certainly, the 'somehow', i.e., the bridge between 'nothing' and
'something' is not explained beyond a 'chance flash'. But because there is no
explanation, does not mean that I can or even should come up with one -
certainly, science hasn't been able to do so, and since I'm an atheist, then,
I'm not going to offer a self-organized belief in god as having been First
Cause. I simply don't know.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Clark, List:
Your points, as usual, are well-taken. Is it helpful at all to refer to
"actualization," rather than "cause"? Edwina's position, as I understand it,
is that our existing universe is not only self-organizing but also
self-generating or self-originating; as Houser put it in his introduction to EP
1, "Somehow, the possibility or potentiality of the chaos is self-actualizing."
This is the crucial transition from Firstness (possibility) to Secondness
(actuality), and the word "somehow" reflects the fact that Houser's attempt to
summarize Peirce's cosmology effectively leaves this step unexplained.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by
the term of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a matter of
habit. Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal manner leads him to
such conclusions. I meant 'chance or Firstness or spontaneity as a causal force
- and there's plenty of comments in Peirce on just this state.
No, I understood exactly what you meant. My disagreement is that I
take "chance" (in Peirce's usage) to be freedom or spontaneity, rather than
randomness or inexplicability; and it is certainly not something that could
ever be "a causal force." I even quoted Peirce to support this view, but you
refer to my "tendency to read in a literal manner" as if it were a bad thing!
Again I think we’re all talking past one an other by equivocating over
the term ‘cause.’ In a certain cause pure freedom or spontaneity isn’t causal
and in an other sense it must be. Effectively each firstness is its own unmoved
mover. The problem is that making sense of causality at all when little is
necessary and most things are underdetermined is problematic.
I think causality is problematic for a variety of other reasons too.
For instance in terms of physics we could oppose the classic Newtonian
formulation of mechanics in terms of forces and masses to the Hamiltonian or
Lagrangian forms. They’re mathematically equivalent yet metaphysically quite
conceptually different. The Hamiltonian is the evolution of the wave function
(what in quantum mechanics becomes the Dirac or Schrodinger equation) and it’s
hard to make sense of causality in terms of it.
Likewise again turning to Duns Scotus we have classic arguments against
causality being continuous. (Basically part of the same extended argument I
linked to earlier for a first cause) For Peirce where any sign can be divided
it’s worth asking if we have causality at all.
Despite these problems of causality we all use the term causality.
He referenced the same series of articles in what was probably his
very first draft of "A Neglected Argument" (1908), and made a few other
comments about it that are relevant to this discussion.
CSP: I there contended that the laws of nature, and, indeed, all
experiential laws, have been results of evolution, being (such was my original
hypothesis,) developments out of utterly causeless determinations of single
events, under a certain universal tendency toward habit-forming ... But during
the long years which have elapsed since the hypothesis first suggested itself
to me, it may naturally be supposed that faulty features of the original
hypothesis have been brought [to] my attention by others and have struck me in
my own meditations. Dr. Edward Montgomery remarked that my theory was not so
much evolutionary as it was emanational; and Professor Ogden Rood pointed out
that there must have been some original tendency to take habits which did not
arise according to my hypothesis; while I myself was most struck by the
difficulty of so explaining the law of sequence in time, if I proposed to make
all laws develope from single events; since an event already supposes Time. (R
842, emphasis added)
I think this might be better read as there being no cause for firstness
not that firstness can’t be seen a not causal. Again I suspect we’re talking
past one an other again but the mere fact firstness can be an element in a
triadic sign more or less entails a certain sense of causation. (Although I
prefer Peirce’s term determination although that too has the genealogy in
problematic metaphysical understanding)
I should add that this problem of language for this foundational event
isn’t new. You see similar debates in late antiquity over whether the platonic
One is one or ought to be considered two emanation steps. While I’ll confess to
finding such matters idle talk there’s usually a logical reason for the
analaysis. (Much like the whole disparaged “how many angels could dance on a
pin” makes sense in the context of the debates over kinds in medieval
scholasticism)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
