Edwina, List: Your analysis completely ignores CP 6.206-208. You claim that none of the marks *ever *interact, and only *one *mark has staying power. But Peirce very clearly stated that *multiple *lines appear, persist, and together form "a *new *line, the envelope of those others," such that they "gradually tend to lose their individuality ... Many such reacting systems may spring up in the original continuum; and each of these may itself act as a first line from which a larger system may be built, in which it in turn will merge its individuality." These larger systems are the many "Platonic worlds," and it is not until *this *point in the story that out of one of them "is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." *This *is where I place the Big Bang--not "the development of 'staying power'" much earlier in the narrative.
Peirce never confines the habit of persistence to one mark, or even one set of marks. He never says or implies that the many reacting systems or the many Platonic worlds "dissipate" after they have developed the habit of persistence--not even once our particular existing universe appears on the scene. Hence your "reading" is quite simply *not consistent with the text itself*, which means that it is not a *reading *at all--it is your imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework. Do I have my own biases? Sure, but I readily acknowledge them, and I am making a good-faith effort to understand *what Peirce meant* based on *what he actually wrote*. I frankly find it amusing that you think I am "upset and angry" about any of this. I am quite comfortable with my assessment here, and once again leave it to the good judgment of the List community to separate the wheat from the chaff. Regards, Jon 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 .
