Clark, list - I think that the point of a primordial symbol is that
it MUST be interpreted to exist even as a symbolic reality. As Peirce
notes 'Symbols are particularly remote from the Truth itself'
[EP2.307] and 'a symbol..determines the interpretant sign. [ibid].
Essentially, I understand this to mean that the potentiality to be a
Sign [a triadic entity either material or conceptual] rests within
the Symbol - because the symbol does not 'exist' as such until it
goes through that triadic process [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]
; that is - "because a symbols is distinguished as a sign which
becomes such by virtue of determining its interpretant [EP2.322].
The fact that, cosmologically, our universe began with 'nothing, no
reaction and no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and
not time, but just nothing at all.... a symbol alone is
indeterminate" [And I reject the essentialist notion that the symbol
was The Word - that notion belongs to Derrida]... The original state
of 'symbolic potentiality' merely means, as I read Peirce, that the
universe as Mind had the potentiality to produce 'an endless series
of interpretants' EP 2.323]. This is, in my view, merely the pure
potentiality-to-be-interpreted. I would define the Symbol then, not
as the Word, but as Mind, that primordial Mind which is forever
seeking to exist as a particular instantiation of itself.
As Peirce also notes in 1.412, this pure potentiality moves out its
'state of nothingness', 'out of the womb of indeterminacy', by the
principle of Firstness - a flash. Then a second flash, and then,
emerges the "habits and the tendency to take habits". That is,
particular instantiations move into existence via the modal
categories of Firstness, Secondness and then, Thirdness.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Tue 28/03/17 5:49 PM , Clark Goble [email protected] sent:
On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there
was in the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no
reaction and no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no
time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that
which is determinately not A supposes the being of A in some mode.
Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate.
Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a
symbol. That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be
understood. (EP 2:322)
As observed by the PEP editors in an endnote, "This statement brings
to mind Peirce's favorite Evangelist: 'In the beginning was the Word'
(John 1:1)." It seems consistent with the comment by Jon A. about
symbols being primordial relative to icons and indices--not to
mention the entire universe, which Peirce described elsewhere as "a
vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose"; and "every
symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of
Reactions and its Icons of Qualities" (EP 2:193-194). So it also
strikes me as another data point in favor of interpreting 3ns as
primordial relative to 1ns and 2ns in Peirce's considered cosmology.
Just to problematize this a tad, I think we might want to
distinguish between the cosmological development of an icon or index
into an index. As you note for Peirce this arises neoplatonically via
symbols. This is roughly constricting possibilities.
But when we speak of a real object that’s already determinate in
some sense and how it determines signs, then I think we can and ought
speak of indices and icons that have that function because of real
(i.e. mind independent) characters.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
