Just a quick follow-up comment. CSP: Consequently, whether in time or not, the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness. We cannot ourselves conceive of such a state of nility; but we can easily conceive that there should be a mind that could conceive it, since, after all, no contradiction can be involved in mere non-existence. A state in which there should be absolutely no super-order whatsoever would be such a state of nility. For all Being involves some kind of super-order. (CP 6.490)
This expresses what I mean by order as intelligibility--"We cannot ourselves conceive of ... a state in which there should be no super-order whatsoever." Hence nothing that we *can *conceive *lacks *order in this sense, including two random spots on a page. Regards, Jon On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > John C., List: > > This is the equivocation to which I have been trying to call attention. > When Jeff talks about "ordered" and "unordered" relations, I take him to be > referring to your notion of "intrinsic priority." When I talk about order > as a prerequisite for existence, I have something different in mind; more > like order in the sense of organization or, perhaps better, > intelligibility. I am evidently not doing a good job of defining it so far. > > The goal of this discussion is to shed light on what Peirce meant by > "super-order" in CP 6.490. It seems clear to me that what he described > there was not order as "intrinsic priority," but rather as that which I am > trying to articulate, since he said that both order and uniformity are > particular varieties of super-order. > > Regards, > > 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 12:04 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, List, >> >> >> >> I think your examples of order are irrelevant to whether the spots have >> order. Relative to the blackboard alone there is no left or right or up and >> down. These come from external conditions (gravity, space ship >> acceleration) and our viewpoint. In three dimensional space we can have >> true left and right handedness, the difference not depending on the >> observer (right hand screw compared to left hand screw) – there is an >> innate asymmetry. But it is not clear this gives and order, which I would >> understand as one having a natural priority. I don’t see a grounds for that >> even in your examples. >> >> >> >> Can any two things have an order that depends on intrinsic priority? >> Well, larger, smaller might. One and two I think have an intrinsic order, >> even without the number system, because there are two independent ways to >> map two onto one (but the opposite is also true, for mapping one onto two) >> that provide a direction. In the mappings, the two relations must meet at >> one, and diverge to two. Is this priority? I am inclined to think it is, >> but I can’t find an argument at 6:30 A< after only one cup of coffee. >> Perhaps two cups would help >> >> >> >> John Collier >> >> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate >> >> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal >> >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
