BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I cannot find that section in 2.322 where Peirce inserts, in
brackets that, eg, 'consciousness' is [1ns]...etc - and I disagree
with such an insertion. Firstness is feeling, without consciousness -
which requires a separation of the experience such that one can be
conscious of it. A paramecium 'feels', i.e., is in a state of 1ns,
but is not conscious of it.
I also disagree that 'pure mind' is 3ns. Thirdness is a specific
aspect of time and space and habit-formation. It is not a
pre-existent [prior to space and time, ie, material embodiment] set
of laws or mind.
The more I read your comments and your inserts - I feel that your
view of Peirce, with its 'idealism' rather than 'objective idealism'
is in line with your own personal theism. Now - whether these views
are also similar to those of Peirce - is a matter for debate. You, of
course, consider them similar. I consider them very dissimilar. So-
that's where it's at.
Edwina
On Sat 03/08/19 11:00 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Helmut, List:
On the contrary, according to Peirce, the necessary being of pure
mind (3ns) does not require time, space, or matter.
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 [2ns] and no quality [1ns], no matter [2ns], no consciousness
[1ns], 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 [3ns]. That is the way in
which the beginning of things can alone be understood. (EP 2:322;
1904)
CSP: Thus, He [God] is so much like a mind [3ns], and so little
like a singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or object that
Exists, a thing subject to brute constraints, and reacting with all
other Existents [2ns],) and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal
possibility [1ns], that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or
Mind [3ns]. (R 843:27[5]; 1908)
CSP: A full exposition of the pragmaticistic definition of Ens
necessarium would require many pages; but some hints toward it may be
given. A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time,
since all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any
and every previous time. (CP 6.490; 1908)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:32 PM Helmut Raulien < [email protected]
[3]> wrote:
List, I think, Edwina is right, because anything that happens,
like an action of a mind, requires time, and time needs a scale, and
a scale needs boundary conditions. These may be a standstill on one
side, and light velocity, or something else, maybe infinity, on the
other. So i guess, there cannot be a mind at work (at some certain,
or any, speed) without the concept of standstill or effeteness, which
would be matter. Also, a mind does not only require time, but space
too, and space and matter are two things that, according to Einstein,
are prerequisites for each other, as you, I forgot who, already have
mentioned. Best, Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
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 .
