Kirsti, Ben, List: There is nothing omitted within each quote; the long dashes are in the original text. Note that in CP 1.422, Peirce is addressing a reader who claims that in the dark, red bodies "become indeterminate in regard to the qualities they are not actually perceived to possess."
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:35 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > > Are there omitted parts in your quotes? Marked by -? > Best, Kirsti > > Benjamin Udell kirjoitti 15.1.2017 20:05: > >> Jon A.S., Kirsti, list, >> >> Regarding Peirce about reflected-on qualities as generals, I was >> basing that on the same text as contains CP 1.427 quoted by Jon A.S. >> That is "§2. Quality" http://www.textlog.de/4282.html [3] in "The >> Logic of Mathematics; An Attempt to Develop My Categories From >> Within," an MS from circa 1896. >> >> From CP 1.422: >> >> [....] In other words, it is concrete things you do not believe in; >>> qualities, that is, generals — which is another word for the same >>> thing — you not only believe in but believe that they alone >>> compose the universe. [....] >>> >> >> From CP 1.425: >> >> [....] When we say that qualities are general, are partial >>> determinations, are mere potentialities, etc., all that is true of >>> qualities reflected upon; but these things do not belong to the >>> quality-element of experience. [....] >>> >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 1/15/2017 11:47 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Kirsti, List: >>> >>> Not surprisingly, I have found that Peirce was exactly right when he >>> stated, "Of all conceptions Continuity is by far the most difficult >>> for Philosophy to handle" (RLT:242). I think that the light bulb >>> finally came on for me when I stopped focusing on a line as >>> consisting of potential vs. actual points, and instead recognized >>> that it consists of continuous line segments all the way down. This >>> reflects the distinction that I just mentioned in my response to Jon >>> A. between the singular (point) and the individual (continuous line >>> segment). A true singularity--determinate in every conceivable >>> respect--would be a _dis_continuity, and hence is only an ideal. >>> >>> As you noted, it is important to keep in mind that the points or >>> line segments do not _comprise _ the continuum; the latter is the >>> more fundamental concept. Hence Peirce changed "the question of >>> nominalism and realism"--rather than, "Are generals real?" it >>> became, "Are any continua real?" (RLT:160) In that sense, I >>> disagree with your subsequent post directed at Ben--a quality _is_ >>> general, because it is a continuum; it just has a different _kind _ >>> of generality/continuity from a habit or law. In fact, Peirce >>> explicitly contrasted the degenerate or negative generality of a >>> quality as permanent or eternal possibility with the genuine or >>> positive generality of a law as conditional necessity (CP 1.427). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> [2] >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:46 AM, <[email protected] > wrote: >>> >>> Jon A.S. >>>> >>>> First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey. >>>> >>>> Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the >>>> basic geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his >>>> architecture of sciences, which presents not just an architecture >>>> of sciences, but more so a method for proceeding with any >>>> questions). >>>> >>>> CSP grew dissatisfied with the ancient view as well as the Kantian >>>> view of continuity. The latist view of CSP was that there are no >>>> points in true continuity, neither does it consist of points, >>>> however small, however near to each other. >>>> >>>> BUT, as a methodological advice, he wrote that it is admissible to >>>> separate of point in the continuity in question, IF it is done >>>> with a deliberate aim & a readyness to leave from separation to >>>> unification as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> In separating any point within the continuum in question, >>>> continuity gets violated. But this violation may and can be >>>> mended. - The point, thus sepateted, must be re-posioned into the >>>> contunuity it was originally pointed out. >>>> >>>> To understand all this, it is necessary to truly understand the >>>> essence of ordinal (nin contrast to cardinal) mathematics,simplest >>>> arihmetics, in the philosophy of CSP. >>>> >>>> The Fist, the Second, the Third.... Then at least a little bit new >>>> Fist, Second, Third... >>>> >>>> CSP came to the conclusion that his categories beared a >>>> resemblance with the three moments by Hegel. - After having been >>>> mocking Hegel's Logic (with good reasons!) >>>> >>>> What, for Peirce ( and me), is universal is change, chance >>>> (spontaneity) and continuity. But, mind you, all together. >>>> >>>> From exlusion of existent individuals (points in a line) does not >>>>> >>>> follow that existent individuals do not matter. - it just follows >>>> that from any collection og existent indivuals ( collection of >>>> points) it is not possible to construe a continuum. - However hard >>>> it may be tried. >>>> >>>> Continuity as an abstraction does not amount to understanding real >>>> continuity. With figments of your imaginations you can do (almost) >>>> anything with a whim of your mind. But even then there is the >>>> ALMOST. The 'not quite', a residual. >>>> >>>> Well. You asked about the relation between universal and general. >>>> But from the viewpoint of taking existent individuals as the >>>> starting point. - Which is wrong. >>>> >>>> It presents a nominalistic starting point. - Are generals real? >>>> was the formulations CSP gave for the basic philosphical >>>> disagreement in the Middle Ages between the Thomists and the >>>> Scotists. - Since then, the nominalistic view has absolute taken >>>> the upper hand. - It rules our minds, from the first grade at >>>> school onwards. >>>> >>>> I truly appreciate your posts to the list. A very good >>>> understanding they present, with due accuracy. - Very seldom met >>>> qualities, very seldom... >>>> >>>> With appreciation, >>>> >>>> Kirsti >>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
