Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before -
Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, 6.217. I
do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, have some
identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility"
6.217.
As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes of
chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other...."the mark is a mere accident, and
as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another mark drawn in quite
another way. There need be no consistency between the two. But no further
progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will stay for a little while;
that is, until some beginning of a habit has been established by virtue of
which the accident acquires some incipient staying quality, some tendency
toward consistency" 6.204.
I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles',
which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond this
can be made...until ONE mark will stay for a while; i.e., takes on
Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe.
So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can emerge
but have no staying power...until one such mark DOES develop this power..and as
such..its consistency makes it dominant as our universe's typology of
matter/mind.
I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading the
texts as they are.
And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which develops
within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang' is not
Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big Bang, but I
read them as POST Big Bang.
And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the texts? Of
course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently. I suppose I'm
trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and angry about the
fact that others don't always accept your view and your analysis.
I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but,
there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we can
come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually comment...
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang?
I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be the
beginning of everything; before the Big Bang, there was nothing. The real
question is, what would Peirce have taken it to be? I think that the much more
likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual Existence" emerged from "the
whole universe of true and real possibilities" as "a discontinuous mark--like a
line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162). So the
Platonic worlds must have been before the Big Bang, because they come before
the existence of our particular universe, and all of them but one have no
connection with the latter whatsoever.
ET: But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began
to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.
Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208? Where in that passage does it say
that only one set of chalk marks began to take habits? On the contrary, it
states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring up," and that we
are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds. Where does it say that
one of these "became dominant" over the others? Where does it suggest that any
merged aggregation of chalk marks, having developed the habit of persistence,
would have--or even could have--"dissipated"? This is not a legitimate reading
of the text, it is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it.
ET: I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read
the texts differently ...
We should not block the way of inquiry by assuming that, just because we read
the texts differently, there is no correct (or incorrect) way to read the texts.
ET: ... but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are
different views on this issue
Do you really think that anyone on the List is not aware of this by now?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary R, Helmut:
The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big
Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In my
reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. But
after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began to take
habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.
I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the
texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that
there are different views on this issue.
Edwina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
