Edwina, List:

ET:  I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of laws ...


There is much more to 3ns than "the development of laws."

ET:  ... and such laws develop afterwards,  as matter develops. Not before.


Physical laws *govern *matter and developed from the psychical law (habit)
of mind.

ET:  His own outline of the origin are that first - is 1ns, then 2nd, then
3ns.


Indeed, for each actualization of a possibility, 1ns is *temporally *primordial
(from the beginning) in the sequence of events.

ET:  I don't see any reference to a pre-existent [and it would have to be
pre-existent] continuum of 3ns.


Existence is 2ns, but 3ns is *logically *primordial (basic and fundamental)
in the constitution of being.  Without a blackboard, there can be no chalk
marks.

As Gary R. said, you disagree, and nothing we can say here is likely to
change your mind.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gary R, list
>
> I think that Peirce's cosmological outlines and references to 'nothing' -
> both in 1.412 and 6.215 and on - are not the 'nothing of death/negation' -
> but, this still doesn't, to me, set up any suggestion of a primordial 3ns.
> I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of laws - and
> such laws develop afterwards,  as matter develops. Not before. The laws are
> not primordial and I think Peirce has said that often enough. His own
> outline of the origin are that first - is 1ns, then 2nd, then 3ns. I don't
> see any reference to a pre-existent [and it would have to be pre-existent]
> 'continuum of 3ns.
>
> That is - you say that the secondary literature posits a primary 3ns - but
> I don't see this in Peirce.
>
> And on another issue - yes, it's interesting - there is
> scientific discussion over whether a Big Bang was the origin or not, but
> that's not relevant here, I think.
>
> 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 .




Reply via email to