Edwina, List: In several drafts of "A Neglected Argument" (R 843), Peirce explicitly assigned Ideas and ideal possibilities to one Universe of Experience, Matter and physical facts to a second, and Mind and minds to a third. I think that these three Universes clearly correspond to his three Categories, but I know that you disagree. Also, I take what you quoted below from CP 6.490 to be part of a *reductio ad absurdum*, since there are no "absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness." I agree that all three Categories are operative *within *our existing universe, but this does not entail that none is primordial from a broader cosmological standpoint.
Again, not looking to resume the debate, just presenting my alternative interpretation. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark: > > Agreed - Firstness has a character while Nothing does not. That's also how > I read Peirce's outline of the three categories - that they operate within > 'character' or boundaries, which means that none of the categories can be > primordial or 'pre-matter'. > > Mind, which in my reading of Peirce, operates within all three modal > categories, emerges with the emergence of the material universe. He notes > this in his outline of the emergence of matter in 1.412, and one can also > read, that he considers "a state of things in which the three universes > were completely nil. Consequently, whether in time or not, the three > universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter > nothingness" 6.490. > The three universes operate within the three modal categories and > therefore, none of them are prior to matter, for 'the universe of > mind..coincides with the universe of matter' [6.501] by which I understand > that the modal categories are correlated with each other and none is > primordial. After all, 'habit-taking is intimately connected with > nutrition' 6.283, i.e., Thirdness is correlated with matter. > > As for WHAT the term of god means, Peirce says 'the analogue of a mind' > [6.502] and since he has already considered that Mind and Matter are > correlated - the one cannot exist without the other [Aristotle]. > > Yes, I agree that original sources are vital - and that they disagree > within texts and with each other. > > Would you say that agapasm is a 'drive towards unity' or is it a 'feeling' > of attraction to Otherness, and an action of the development of some, just > some, commonalities. That is, agapasm requires diversity of matter, for > 'love' exists only within an attraction to the Not-Self and the 'power of > sympathy' towards this otherness 6.307. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Clark Goble <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:40 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] nominalism > > 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 > > 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 .
