Edwina, List: ET: So- at the moment, I don't see much difference, apart from semantics, in the perspectives of Firstness and Secondness. Both 'begin' with Firstness ...
On the contrary--according to Guardiano, the Firstness perspective does NOT begin with Firstness, it begins with Thirdness. NG: Finally, there is the analysis from the perspective of the category of firstness ... From this point of view, the essential feature that appears to characterize the origin of the universe is its status as a continuum, and this means that its character-defining category is thirdness ... the continuum at the origin of the universe is special in that it is the master continuum containing all possible and existing continua. That feature is expressed in Peirce’s analogy of the blackboard. The blackboard when blank describes a spatial continuum open to all kinds of possible figures that may be drawn ... Peirce’s description of the origin as “pure zero” and “nothing” is intended only in the sense that it consists in "no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. [Nevertheless, i]t is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed" (CP 6.217). Hardly nothing in the common sense, then, it rather is possibly *everything*, “the whole universe” in potential. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, an interesting article and must be read thoroughly. I'm not sure > about an analysis of cosmological reality from the perspective of a > Category...I don't know how one does such a thing! > > A few excerpts from the article that I so far find interesting. > > 1) In Max Fisch’s words, Peirce is nothing other than a “three-category > realist”; he believes in “the triune Reality” whereby the categories are > inherent, ubiquitous, and tripresent elements of the universe.[1] This is > to say that the categories are more than the most general conceptual > structures of experience and thought—as Kant’s categories are for him. They > are that *and *the most general ontological or metaphysical structures of > the universe. > > EDWINA: Exactly - my reading of Peirce is that one cannot privilege any > category; cannot say that any are 'a priori' or operate alone; Peirce is a > three -category realist. > > > > 2) “so far as there is any reality, what that reality consists in is this: > that there is in the being of things something which corresponds to the > process of reasoning, that the world *lives*, and *moves*, and *HAS ITS > BEING*, in a logic of events. We all think of nature as syllogizing” (RLT > 161 > > > > EDWINA: And again, exactly - the world LIVES and MOVES...and nature does > indeed 'syllogize'i.e., operate within the triadic semiosic Sign. And this > is also where one finds that commonality with George Spencer Brown, who > also saw the world from the perspective of the active individual > agent..rather than from a metaphysical analytic view. > > > > 3) In other words, they “are not merely mental in origin. They *are * part > of the structure of our minds, but they are also part of the structure of > reality itself” (ibid., 44). Thus, the categories have “ontological or > cosmological import…. [in that they] designate, among other things, the > modes of being and also the modes of the coming to be of the cosmos > itself…. [They] designate both the irreducible modes of being and the > ubiquitous traits of nature” (ibid., 43). > > [1] See EP1 121 and EP2 335. > > > > EDWINA: Again - the categories are NOT mental or theoretical constructs. > They have ontological being...and do not merely 'designate' but FORM the > 'modes of being'. > > > > 4) the ultimate origin of the universe that consists in a master continuum > of the most abstract kind of potentiality. It is “the utter vagueness of > completely undetermined and dimensionless potentiality,” or a vague > potentiality of “everything in general but of nothing in particular.”[1] > > > > , it also is described as “pure zero” or “the germinal nothing, in which > the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely > undefined and unlimited possibility—boundless possibility. There is no > compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.”[1] > > ------------------------------ > > [1] CP 6.217. > > > > EDWINA: Again, we can argue about pre and post 'Big Bang' [as well as > whether there was ever such an event] - but the point is, that there was, > as I read it, a pre-categorical 'situation'. And afterwards, the three > categories developed as matter/mind developed. > > > > 5)The first stage, he says, is like a blank blackboard, the forms of the > second stage like individual lines drawn on the blackboard, and the third > stage like the overlapping of lines that jointly create the curved shape of > an oval. > > > > EDWINA: And we can argue about whether this blackboard is an image of a > pre-BigBang or Post Big Bang world. My view is that it is post. > > > > Also - I don't see Firstness as Chaos but as Spontaneity, Chance, Freedom, > Feeling. > > > > So- at the moment, I don't see much difference, apart from semantics, in > the perspectives of Firstness and Secondness. Both 'begin' with Firstness - > [not as chaos] but as spontaneity/feeling. Then move onto 'brute facts of > existence or a dyadic reaction; and Then, onto the establishment of > habits/continua of morphology. > > > > 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 .
