List: This is resurrecting a thread from a few months ago, but I just came across some passages near the end of "New Elements" (EP 2:322-324; c. 1904) that seem to provide further confirmation of how I have been interpreting Peirce's cosmology; in particular, what he meant by "nothing" as its starting point.
CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction and no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not *A* supposes the being of *A* in some mode. Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a symbol. That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be understood. As the PEP editors mention in an endnote, while it is not a quote, this certainly sounds a lot like John 1:1--"In the beginning was the Word [ *logos*]"; and of course, a symbol or word is a paradigmatic example of 3ns, not 1ns. The text goes on to say that a symbol "produces an endless series of interpretants," and that reality "can only be regarded as the limit of the endless series of symbols. A symbol is essentially a purpose, that is to say, is a representation that seeks to make itself definite, or seeks to produce an interpretant more definite than itself." Finally, CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing; and therefore pure nothing was such a chaos. Then pure indeterminacy having developed determinate possibilities, creation consisted in mediating between the lawless reactions and the general possibilities by the influx of a symbol. This symbol was the purpose of creation. Its object was the entelechy of being which is the ultimate representation. This matches up fairly well with my take on the blackboard diagram. The "chaos of reactions" is the clean blackboard as chalk marks are spontaneously drawn on and erased from it. The "determinate possibilities" are the marks that begin to persist and aggregate in accordance with habits due to "the influx of a symbol," which is the introduction of "the purpose of creation" as their organizing principle . That purpose and creation itself continue to be carried out today (cf. CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903), consistent with my updated semeiotic rendition of Peirce's cosmology as a whole, as follows. Our existing universe is a Representamen--specifically, an Argument, and therefore a Symbol; a manifestation primarily of 3ns, but necessarily involving elements of 1ns (Icons of Qualities) and 2ns (Indices of Reactions). The Dynamic Object is God Himself, infinitely incomprehensible to us; and the Immediate Object is God's purpose, which is the development of Reason—the growth of our knowledge about God, as well as about all three Universes of Experience that He has created and is still creating. The Interpretant is the Conclusion, living realities that our existing universe is constantly working out--the Immediate Interpretant serving as the range of possibilities from which individual Dynamic Interpretants are actualized, and the habit-taking tendency developing some of these into Final Interpretants. This Argument produces a belief that is initially vague, but continually becomes more and more definite, without limit. Regards, Jon On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark: > > To clarify, I did not mean to imply that I was stating *Peirce's* analysis > of John 1:1; again, as far as I know, he never quoted or directly commented > on it. That was just my own first pass at parsing it in terms of the three > Categories. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> At first glance, it seems to me that mapping John 1:1 to Peirce's >> Categories gives us something like, "In the beginning was the Word >> [Thirdness], and the Word was with God [Secondness], and the Word was God >> [Firstness]." >> >> I’ll just confess my ignorance here since there are different ways to >> read that and I couldn’t find anything on how Peirce did. His beliefs are >> idiocyncratic enough I’m loath to simply impose on him traditional views of >> the Trinity or the Logos. After all this was also a point where Eckhart and >> Duns Scotus differed as well. (Is the Father Being or Intellect among other >> matters) >> >> Making things more complicated are the various ways “logos” can be used. >> Scotus often uses it as reason. >> >> Unfortunately I don’t have my CP handy so I’ll see if I have time to look >> this up at home. (I still need to find that Ransdell paper on love too — >> although I’m coming to think I conflated it in my memory with a paper of >> Michael Ventimiglia, “Reclaiming the Peircean Cosmology: Existential >> Abduction and the Growth of Self") >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
