John, List: Excellent comments. See mine below:
On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
1) >> my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic
universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge
within the existentiality of the matter/mind universe.
JFS: Yes. But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some time thereafter,
there were no minds or quasi-minds that could perceive and interpret
that existence. But there was a physical kind of monadic and dyadic
pre-semiosis.
ET: I don't know that analytic perception/interpretation is necessary for
Thirdness. As Mike Bergman just pointed out, 'Mind' operates in
physico-chemical matter. Therefore, I'd claim that Thirdness, which I'll
define as the process of generating and using habits, i.e., habits of
morphology - emerges at the same time as Firstness and Secondness. So, what
first emerged as let's say, a hydrogen atom could continue on its typology
within the habits of Thirdness.
-----------------------
2) JFS:> As soon as life of any kind (even some kind of pre-life) began
to form, there was the beginning of a non-degenerate Thirdness.
As soon as there were animals with sight (any alien animals on
any early planets), they could look up at more ancient stars and
interpret (full Thirdness) patterns that had never previously
been the objects of semiosis.
ET: Again, I don't see Thirdness as operative only within life/pre-life; it
exists in the physico-chemical realms as well. As for objective
interpretation - I'm not sure that all that is required is sight. I think
that the development and use of symbols is necessary for objective analysis.
And I don't see symbolic use outside of our species.
--------------------------------------------------
3) >> my reading of this pre-universe state is that it was, as Peirce
notes "unbounded potentiality'. This "Nothingness of boundless
freedom 6.219..." is not, in my view, the same as the logic of
freedom or possibility [which is Firstness].
JFS: I agree. But we have to distinguish the universe (whatever it is)
from any mathematical coordinate system we impose upon it, around it,
or outside of it.
For the moment, let's ignore string theory, multiverses, and other
such hypotheses. Just consider an Einsteinian 4-D universe.
Mathematically, we can postulate a 100-dimensional coordinate system
in which that 4-D universe is "embedded". But that system is just
pure mathematics. Nothing exists that has that shape.
We could name one of those dimensions "supertime" and imagine
that coordinate line running through the middle of the 4D universe.
Then we could call the line segment running to minus infinity
"pre-time" and the segment running to plus infinity "post-time".
But whatever we call it is irrelevant. It exists only in our
100-D hypothesis. For the actual universe, that line called
supertime is meaningless.
As Peirce would say, supertime has no implications whatsoever
for anything that any intelligent being in the universe could
ever perceive or act upon. It's just pure mathematics with
no observable effects or meaningful applications.
ET: Interesting - and I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more
detail.>
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
