Edwina, List: This is a classic case of having a predetermined view and then imposing it on the text, rather than reading and understanding the author's actual words.
For one thing, you consistently fall back on CP 1.412, treating it as if it were Peirce's definitive description of his cosmology. It comes from an unpublished manuscript that the CP editors dated c. 1890, but the Peirce Edition Project more accurately dated 1887-1888. As I indicated at the end of my last post, all of the passages that I have been citing are from 1891-1892, and thus presumably reflect Peirce's more considered views--especially since two of them are from published articles. He went on to discuss cosmology extensively in the 1898 Cambridge Lectures on "Reasoning and the Logic of Things," especially the last one (CP 6.185-213), and ten years after that in the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" (CP 6.490). Any assessment of Peirce's cosmology that ignores those additional passages is incomplete and therefore misleading. Again, there can be no reasonable doubt that *in 1891-1892*, Peirce labeled his own basic metaphysical doctrine as *idealism*--specifically, a *Schelling-fashioned* idealism; *objective *idealism, as opposed to *subjective *idealism. This is not a speculative harmonization or synthesis of CP 6.24-25, CP 6.102, CP 7.570, and R 936:3 on my part; it is what those texts *explicitly state*. You are obviously welcome to *adopt *the view "that Mind is not primordial but emerges with Matter" *as your own*, but you have no warrant for describing that view as "objective idealism" in accordance with how *Peirce *defined and endorsed it in those four passages, most notably CP 6.24-25. In identifying there the broad alternatives for a basic metaphysical doctrine, he recognized no fifth option--only dualism, neutralism, materialism, and idealism. He unambiguously rejected the first three of these, but not the fourth. We could go through Peirce's relevant later writings, but I have already spelled out my interpretation of them in my online paper, "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" ( https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187), much of which was drawn from my contributions to our on-List debates nearly three years ago. The short version from my standpoint is that for Peirce, *indeterminacy *is associated with 3ns, while *indefiniteness *(or *vagueness*) is associated with 1ns. The indeterminacy of generality as continuity (blackboard) logically preceded the indefiniteness of chaos as possibility (whiteboard), which logically preceded all determinate and definite existence (discontinuous mark). Moreover, *all *being requires *necessary *being (*Ens necessarium*), which Peirce identified with God as "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:52 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list > > I continue to disagree with your and JAS's interpretation. You have both > set up a primordial Mind, [what is its ultimate source??] which then > articulates itself within Matter. > > My reading of Peirce is that 'objective idealism' means that Mind is not > primordial but emerges with Matter as Matter emerges after the first chaos. > Mind emerges as evolving habits within 'the material Object' . > > I consider that Peirce has explained this well - > > 1] Primordial - in his analysis of 'the beginning- the primordial state > was 'Nothing'. Not a primordial Mind. But - nothing. See 6.217 and218. > Here, he rejects Hegel's privileging of reason and discusses instead that > the primordial is "It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe > is involved or foreshadowed. As such it is absolutely undefined and > unlimited possibility - boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and > now law. It is boundless freedom" 6.217. This means - to my reading - that > there is no Primordial Mind. And no primordial Matter. There is just > Nothing. > > - in another "the initial condition, before the universe existed, was not > a state of pure abstract being. On the contrary, it was a state of just > nothing at all, not even a state of emptiness, for even emptiness is > something" 6.215 > > - "the original potentiality is the Aristotelian matter or indeterminacy > from which the universe is formed" 6.206. [Note: my reading of this is that > Aristotelian matter is not similar to Peircean 2ns, but more comparable to > a potentiality] > > - the universe began "in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined > and dimensionless potentiality" 6.193. > > 2] The Emergence of Matter and Mind - Peirce outlines - in this section > and in 1.412 [A guess at the riddle] - the emergence of organized matter. > "Out of the womb of indeterminancy we must say that there would have come > something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then > by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash...then there > would have come other successions ever more and more closely connected, the > habits and the tendency to take them ever strengthening themselves until > the events would have been bound together into something like a continuous > flow" [1.412] > > I read the above as explaining that Mind as habit emerges with Matter; > neither is primordial and both co-evolve. I read this co-emergence and > co-evolution also in 7.514-5. > > 3] The Co-Evolution of Matter and Mind -"But if the laws of nature are > still in process of evolution from a state of things, in the infinitely > distant past in which there were no laws," 7.514] [Note - I read this to > be that there is no primordial Mind but that it evolved with Matter]. > > - "But if the laws of nature are results of evolution, this evolution must > proceed according to some principle; and this principles will itself be of > the nature of a law. But it must be such a law that it can evolve or > develop itself" 7.515. [I read this to mean that Mind as habits > evolves/self-develops with Matter. Therefore, it is not primordial. > > -Then, there's Peirce's synechism, which rejects the separation of Mind > and Matter - 'the synechist will not admit that physical and psychical > phenomena are entirely distinct - whether as belonging to different > categories of substance, or as entirely separate sides of one shield - but > will insist that all phenomena are of one character, though some are more > mental and spontaneous, others more material and regular". 7.570. [I read > this to mean that Mind is not primordial; and matter is not primordial]. > > 4] Objective Idealism. When Peirce is discussing, in 6.24, the nature of > Mind and Matter - and he asks whether "physical laws on the one hand and > the psychical law on the other are to be taken " as independent, > [neutralism] or with the physical law alone as primordial [materialism] or > with the psychical law alone as primordial [idealism]. > > My reading is that he rejects all three. Instead - he posits 'objective > idealism' which accepts that both Mind and Matter are real and not > identical but - has neither Mind nor Matter as independent of each other > and therefore, neither as primordial -but as co-dependent and co-evolving. > If neither is primordial then, how do they come to be? As he says, 'matter > is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" 6.24. > > And - since I also accept his cosmology where there is Nothing, neither > Matter nor Mind, that is primordial, then - when Peirce writes that > 'matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws ' - I > interpret this to mean that Mind only emerges and exists as Matter > and Matter only emerges and exists as an articulation of Mind - . They > co-emerged from potentiality/chaos - and co-evolve. I think that Peirce > outlines this co-emergence quite well in his outline. > > That's why I disagree with the interpretation of Peirce that sees Mind as > primordial. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
