Jerry, List: Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ...
- Pragmatically, all real reactions have a tendency toward regularity (i.e., habit-taking). - Philosophically, 1ns and 2ns are both governed by 3ns (cf. CP 6.202). - Theologically, God created everything else out of absolutely nothing. Regards, Jon On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > > 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| adjective1 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> 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 .
