> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 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. >
Given Peirce’s conception of God is God actually creating out of nothing? Further is the nothing as pure potency the nothing of creation ex nihilo? Secondly when you say firstness and secondness are governed by thirdness I’m not sure what you mean. CP 6.202 seems to not be addressing that issue, depending upon what you mean by “govern.” That passage is more about Peirce objecting to his whole system being called tychism. He does say thirdness has a commanding function but he also says “that Firstness or chance and Secondness or Brute reaction are other elements without the independence of which Thirdness would not have anything upon which to operate.” (6.202) That is they aren’t governed if by govern we mean dependence. Of course if by govern we mean lawlike recognition of their manifestation then I’d agree. My apologies if I’m misreading you.
----------------------------- 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 .
