Jeffrey, Jon, list: You quoted Peirce saying: "Any proposition whatever concerning the order of Nature must touch more or less upon religion."
What a strange statement. Would you accept that if I had said it instead of Peirce? Best, Jerry R On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, List: > > I will try to take a closer look at this later. > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon S, Gary R, List, >> >> Given our interest in providing a clearer meaning for the conceptions of >> order and Super-order, I think that these passages might be helpful. >> >> Any proposition whatever concerning the order of Nature must touch more >> or less upon religion. In our day, belief, even in these matters, depends >> more and more upon the observation of facts. If a remarkable and universal >> orderliness be found in the universe, there must be some cause for this >> regularity, and science has to consider what hypotheses might account for >> the phenomenon. One way of accounting for it, certainly, would be to >> suppose that the world is ordered by a superior power. But if there is >> nothing in the universal subjection of phenomena to laws, nor in the >> character of those laws themselves (as being benevolent, beautiful, >> economical, etc.), which goes to prove the existence of a governor of the >> universe, it is hardly to be anticipated that any other sort of evidence >> will be found to weigh very much with minds emancipated from the tyranny of >> tradition. (CP 6.395) >> >> And then, two paragraphs later: >> >> If we could find out any general characteristic of the universe, any >> mannerism in the ways of Nature, any law everywhere applicable and >> universally valid, such a discovery would be of such singular assistance to >> us in all our future reasoning that it would deserve a place almost at the >> head of the principles of logic. On the other hand, if it can be shown that >> there is nothing of the sort to find out, but that every discoverable >> regularity is of limited range, this again will be of logical importance. >> What sort of a conception we ought to have of the universe, how to think of >> the ensemble of things, is a fundamental problem in the theory of >> reasoning. (CP 6.397) >> >> So, how should we "think of the ensemble of things"? Peirce provides the >> definition for "ensemble" in the Century Dictionary. In the second >> definition of the term, he characterizes the mathematical use of the >> conception. In that definition, he makes a distinction between an ensemble >> of the first genus, the second genus, and a tout ensemble. It is clear, I >> think, that he is talking about a tout ensemble at 6.397. What is more, I >> believe that he is talking about a tout ensemble in RLT, when he puts the >> word in italics on page 259. How should we think of order and Super-order >> as they are applied to each of these three sorts of ensembles? >> >> He explicitly uses "tout ensemble" in the following passage: >> >> The division of modes of Being needs, for our purposes, to be carried a >> little further. A feeling so long as it remains a mere feeling is >> absolutely simple. For if it had parts, those parts would be something >> different from the whole, in the presence of which the being of the whole >> would consist. Consequently, the being of the feeling would consist of >> something beside itself, and in a relation. Thus it would violate the >> definition of feeling as that mode of consciousness whose being lies >> wholly in itself and not in any relation to anything else. In short, a >> pure feeling can be nothing but the total unanalyzed impression of the >> tout ensemble of consciousness. Such a mode of being may be called simple >> monadic Being. CP 6.345 >> >> Given the fact that Peirce draws this meaning of "tout ensemble" from >> mathematics, I'm wondering if some examples from topology, projective >> geometry or metrical geometry might help to clarify the differences between >> a tout ensemble and ensembles of the first and second genus. Peirce offers >> the example of Desargues' theory of Involution and its use in the 6 point >> theorem on page 245. How does the conception of an ensemble apply in this >> case where we are looking at the intersection of these rays as they are >> projected from their origins at Q and R? >> >> The upshot of this example is made clearer when he says that Cayley >> showed that the whole of geometrical metric is but a special problem in >> geometrical optic. The point Peirce is making is that the development of >> the conception of a projective absolute as a locus in space was central for >> thinking about the character of projective space as a whole--i.e., as a >> tout ensemble. Taken as a whole, the topological character of the space is >> something that we study by a process of decomposition. That is, we cut it >> up and see how the parts are connected. In this way, we come to see what >> Listing numbers are for the Chorisis, Cyclosis, Periphraxis and Immensity >> of such a space. The Periphraxis and Immensity, I take it, are especially >> important in understanding the character of the tout ensemble of a >> projective space. He says that the Periphraxis of perspective space is 1, >> and that the Immensity of any figure in our space is 0, except for the >> entirety of space itself, for which the Immensity is 1. >> >> These kinds of exercises in mathematics are essential, I believe, for >> understanding the points he is illustrating using the diagram involving >> blackboard on pages 261-3. How might we draw them out? >> >> --Jeff >> >> Jeffrey Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> Northern Arizona University >> (o) 928 523-8354 > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
