Jerry, List: I am not sure what you mean by "the scope of [my] literality," or the precise distinction that you are drawing between "pragmatically" vs. "philosophically" vs. "theologically." Would you mind clarifying?
In any case, since it occurs only a few paragraphs later within the same document, I assume that Peirce meant the same thing by "nothing" in this sentence that he did in the first passage that I quoted. "Not determinately nothing ... Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a symbol." After all, he went on to say, "... 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." Regards, Jon On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Jon: > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is > absolutely nothing; > > In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this > sentence to you, > > pragmatically? > philosophically? > theologically? > > Cheers > > jerry >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
