Edwina, list: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man.
*http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html <http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html>* Hth, Jerry R On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *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 <tabor...@primus.ca> > 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 > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
