Gary If one reads CSP more carefully, one finds strands of science, especially math and chemistry, in almost every sentence.
The unity of his thinking appears to me to be the bedrocks from which his sentences take form. Almost always, the semiosis of the sin-sign necessarily infers an index, a quantifiable INDEX that emerges from the bedrock of mental structures. At least, that is how I read the organic roots of the organization of his symbolic ordering that beget his natural predications. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Jon, John, List, > I don’t see how Peirce’s cosmology, which is essentially metaphysical (i.e. > based on logical principles), has any bearing on the Big Bang theory, which > is strictly a physical hypothesis testable only by means of physical > observations. I suppose Peirce as physicist would have had something to say > about the Big Bang, but I don’t think it would necessitate a modification of > his cosmology, nor would his cosmology imply a denial that the Big Bang > happened at the beginning of the physical universe as we know it. > Gary f. > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > Sent: 23-Aug-19 09:58 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang > > John, List: > > > > JFS: An amazing event occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. > > > > Again, that estimated time frame relies on the assumption that the laws of > nature have remained essentially unchanged for the entire duration--a > presupposition that Peirce rejected in favor of "thorough-going evolutionism" > (CP 6.14; 1891), since "law itself requires an explanation" (CP 6.613; 1893). > > > > JAS: Peirce's synechism, tychism, and (objective) idealism together conceive > the entire universe as fundamentally a semeiosic continuum--a continuum of > mind, including matter as "effete mind" > > JFS: The word 'fundamentally' is inappropriate. Peirce's hypotheses were > vague. The term 'effete mind' is vague, and his translation of Schelling's > term 'erloschene Geist' as "extinct mind" is just as vague ... At best, both > terms are colorful metaphors. Any inferences from them are unsubstantiated > speculations. > > > > Fortunately, Peirce did not leave us with only those terms. He immediately > explained "effete mind" as "inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP > 6.25, EP 1:293; 1891). In the previous paragraph, he defined idealism as > "the physical law derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial" > (CP 6.24, EP 1:292; 1891). He elaborated elsewhere that his > "Schelling-fashioned idealism ... holds matter to be mere specialized and > partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102, EP 1:312; 1892); "that what we call > matter is not completely dead, but is merely mind hidebound with habits" (CP > 6.158, EP 1:331; 1892); that "physical events are but degraded or undeveloped > forms of psychical events ... the phenomena of matter are but the result of > the sensibly complete sway of habits upon mind" (CP 6.264, EP 1:348; 1892); > that "we must ... regard matter as mind whose habits have become fixed so as > to lose the powers of forming them and losing them" (CP 6.101; 1902); and > that "matter is nothing but effete mind,--mind so completely under the > domination of habit as to act with almost perfect regularity & to have lost > its powers of forgetting & of learning" (R 936:3; no date). All of these > passages, especially taken together, make it unmistakably clear that Peirce > considered the "stuff" of the universe to be fundamentally mind, from which > matter is derived. > > > > CSP: Philosophy tries to understand. In so doing, it is committed to the > assumption that things are intelligible, that the process of nature and the > process of reason are one. (CP 6.581; c. 1905) > > > > JFS: Most scientists today would agree with that quotation. > > > > Just for the record, Gary F. informed me off-List that the Peirce Edition > Project dated that quote to 1890 and included it in W6 accordingly (p. 392). > It is not clear why the CP editors thought that Peirce wrote it some 15 years > later. > > > > JFS: There is a huge amount of speculation about cosmology by scientists, > theologians, and people who have backgrounds in both. They have a century > more information than Peirce had. Yet they can't make any definite claims. > > > > Of course--again, my interpretation of Peirce is that the "beginning" itself > was indefinite, just like any individual mind's "first" cognition of an > external object. Such is the nature of any truly continuous process. > > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
