> On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > This nothing is limitless possibilities BUT, after those first two 'flashes' > outlined by Peirce, these flashes which introduce particular matter also > introduce Thirdness or habits of formation, and these then start to limit and > constrain the possibilities. So, I don't consider that the 'Nothing' is like > Firstness, since my reading of Peirce posits that Firstness operates as a > mode of organization of matter...and this requires matter to exist! That is, > my reading of Peirce is that the three modal categories only develop when > matter develops. So, before there was matter, this 'Nothing' is not > Firstness. As Peirce outlines it - it is 'nothing'. Firstness is a powerful > mode of organization of matter, rejecting closure, limits, borders. And > certainly, since matter at this pretemporal phase hasn't developed any laws > of modal organization, it doesn't yet function within Thirdness.
As I understand it the main difference between nothing (or the zeroth category) and firstness is just how bounded it is. Firstness has a character whereas Nothing does not. Again Peirce is here following several types of neoPlatonism from the latter period of late antiquity that divide the One into two types of Oneness, one more primordial. It’s worth reading the SEP here although it doesn’t get into the nuances of differing schools of neoPlatonism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/#One <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/#One> You’ll note that the neoPlatonic notion of everything having an inner and an outer aspect is also part of Peirce’s thought. Even Peirce’s agapism is pretty much the neoPlatonism of Iamblichus where love is the drive towards unity. Within the One (unthinking limit) are two aspects — an inner and an outer. The One and the Many. (This is where he and a few other prominent neoPlatonists split with other schools) Unformed chaotic matter is the ultimate unlimited which is the One in its inner form. Limit is the other principle. These then mix with each other in weird ways (this neoPlatonism was primarily religious rather than straightforwardly philosophical) allowing the emanation of the Forms (firstness for Peirce) and then to the World Soul which is roughly the neoPlatonic idea of thirdness. I don’t recall if Peirce read Iamblichus (although I assume he did) although I know he read Proclus who was influenced by both Iamblichus and Plotinus. Again this to me is where Peirce is at his most controversial. But when reading these passages about limit, difference, and chaos of pure potency it’s worth reading the original sources Peirce is likely drawing upon. One should also note that the sources themselves didn’t always agree with each other in the details.
----------------------------- 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 .
