> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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?
The generic meaning of these terms is fine with me. It is also fine with me if you choose your literal meanings. see below. Cheers Jerry literal |ˈlidərəlˈlitrəl| adjective 1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory: dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread. • free from exaggeration or distortion: you shouldn't take this as a literal record of events. • informal absolute (used to emphasize that a strong expression is deliberately chosen to convey one's feelings): fifteen years of literal hell. 2 (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text. • (of a visual representation) exactly copied; realistic as opposed to abstract or impressionistic. 3 (also literal-minded) (of a person or performance) lacking imagination; prosaic. 4 of, in, or expressed by a letter or the letters of the alphabet: literal mnemonics. > > 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 <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jon: >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> <mailto: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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
