Clark, List: Whenever Peirce wrote about "nothing" as the starting point of "everything," he seemed to have this idea of "boundless possibility" in mind, which I associate with the clean blackboard in his RLT diagram. It is indeed a non-traditional notion of "nothing," but I disagree with your assertion "that Peirce’s cosmology ends up providing that God himself as something real also emerges out of the same nothingness from which creation proceeds."
On the contrary, Peirce identified God as *Ens necessarium* in "A Neglected Argument." In several different drafts, he explicitly called God the non-immanent Creator of all three Universes of Experience and everything in them, without exception. In other words, God *made *the blackboard and *draws *all of the chalk marks on it. This is perhaps most clearly evident in Peirce's brief but fascinating analysis of Genesis 1:2-5, an account that he attributed to a "Babylonian philosopher." CSP: It is remarkable that though subconsciously yet he has perceived the need of every element which was needed for the first day. His *tohu wabohu, terra inanis et vacua* is the indeterminate germinal Nothing. His *Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas* is consciousness. His *Lux* is the world of quality. His *fiat lux* is an arbitrary reaction. His *divisit lucem a tenebris* is the recognition of the necessary duality. His *vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona* is the waking consciousness. Finally, his *factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus* is the emergence of Time ... This first day of creation was all in the very first moment of time. (NEM 4:138-139; c. 1898) Of course, this is all preceded by Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Hence God is clearly prior to "the indeterminate germinal Nothing"; in my view, God *conceived *that Nothing, and then *created *everything else. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So I think we can say pretty definitively that Peirce's conception of God, > at least in 1908, does involve God actually creating out of "nothing," > which he consistently characterizes as "less than a blank." > > Right, I recognize that. However this seems somewhat at odds with > Augustine and *creation ex nihil *where the nothing is not the nothing of > Peirce’s quasi-neoplatonism. So there’s equivocation going on. That is > Peirce’s conception of creation is closer (albeit not the same) as what one > finds in process theology. Peirce says the nothing is “boundless > possibility” as opposed to particular possibility (which is firstness). (CP > 6.217) “The zero collection is bare, abstract, germinal possibility. The > continuum is concrete, developed possibility.” (RLT 162) > > Part of the problem is that Peirce’s cosmology ends up providing that God > himself as something real also emerges out of the same nothingness from > which creation proceeds. So this is quite different from Augustine. > > Again we’re here at that point I’ve often seen as the most controversial > of Peirce’s thought. It’s not necessarily well developed for reasonably > good reasons. I think that in some ways Peirce is retracing thinking that > went on in traditional neoPlatonism (i.e. non-Christian). > > There are several key differences of Peirce from traditional *creation ex > nihilo* such as the ontological divide between creator and creation which > isn’t part of Peirce’s conception. The meaning of nothing, as I mentioned. > It’s also different from certain neoPlatonic conceptions in terms of the > ordering of time. “The evolutionary process is, therefore, not a mere > evolution of the *existing universe*, but rather a process by which the > very Platonic forms themselves have become or are becoming developed.” (CP > 6.194) While time is tricky to discuss in neoPlatonism typically the One is > seen as logically preceding such matters. So time is the unveiling of in > spirit of something there is *already* a form for. Peirce inverts this > which also puts him at odds with *creation ex nihilo *since Augustine and > most medievals see everything complete prior to time. That is God creates > the universe whereas Peirce sees God as “to be now creating the universe” > (CP 6.505) > > While I wouldn’t say Peirce is a pantheist quite the way say Spinoza is, > there is a certain similarity. The famous passage in “A Guess at the > Riddle” shows him thinking in this direction. > > The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute > First; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the > Absolute Second; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time > is the third. (CP 1.362) > > How to take this isn’t completely clear, especially given his notion of > nothing. And there is always a risk of mixing quotes from different time > periods. But it seems like out of nothing God appears and continues to > create out of nothing which is the universe unveiling itself until God is > completely revealed as the end of the universe. > > Again I’m not sure how to take all of this. It’s ideas I’m a bit skeptical > about. I think the places Peirce is discussing these things are at the > limit of what we can even do with language. I’m also not sure, as I’ve > mentioned before, how to connect this with the theist interventionist God > that sometimes Peirce seems a bit skeptical of. >
----------------------------- 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 .
