Gary R., List: Your additional comments are well-taken, especially about the distinction that you suggest "may, indeed, prove to be at the core of the disagreement." In fact, it is why I follow Nicholas Guardiano's lead in discerning not just one, but *three *cosmological accounts in Peirce's writings--the fundamental constitution of being (3ns→1ns→2ns), in accordance with *synechism*; the actual sequence of events (1ns→2ns→3ns), in accordance with *tychism*; and the overall evolution of states (1ns→3ns→2ns), in accordance with (objective) *idealism*. 1ns is *temporally *primordial (possibility/spontaneity/chaos), but 3ns is *logically *primordial (continuity/habit-taking/process); even the sequence of events would be *impossible *without the habit of persistence (3ns) enabling different products of spontaneity (1ns) to begin reacting with each other (2ns). From Peirce's blackboard diagram ...
CSP: We see the original generality like the ovum of the universe segmentated by this mark. However, the mark is a mere accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will *stay *for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a *habit *has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency. This habit is a generalizing tendency, and as such a generalization, and as such a general, and as such a continuum or continuity. It must have its origin in the original continuity which is inherent in potentiality. Continuity, as generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general. (CP 6.204; 1898) Generality (3ns) is *original*, "like the ovum of the universe." Continuity (3ns) is *original*, "inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general." Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:41 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > Jon wrote: > > The resulting evolution of states is an ongoing and continuous process > (3ns) away from the ideal limit of "unpersonalized feeling" (1ns) in the > infinite past and toward the ideal limit of "dead matter" (2ns) in the > infinite future. On the other hand, we should acknowledge that when Peirce > *himself *discussed cosmology, he *only *applied the term "universal > tendency" to habit-taking and generalization (CP 6.209 and CP 7.515; both > 1898)--paradigmatic examples of 3ns. > > > This is a crucial point to keep in mind, I think, in our cosmological > inquiry. For even if one can imagine that there are other universal > tendencies, Peirce *"only *applied the term 'universal tendency' to > habit-taking and generalization --paradigmatic examples [along with > continuity, relevant here GR] of 3ns." > > JAS: . . .saying that 3ns is primordial in no way entails that 1ns and 2ns > are *reducible to* 3ns, which was the error of Hegel . . . or that 1ns > and 2ns are otherwise dispensable. Instead, . . . 1ns and 2ns are *involved > in* 3ns and can be *prescinded from* 3ns. The entire universe is a > continuum (3ns), with parts that are indefinite (1ns), unless and until > they are actualized (2ns). 1898 > > Again, this expresses an idea which, I believe, is vitally important in > this discussion because holding that 3ns is primordial and represents a > universal continuum entails its necessarily *involving* 1ns and 2ns, for, > as I earlier argued, the latter can only be intellectually prescinded from > 3ns which cannot replace either of them. JAS: "The entire universe is a > continuum (3ns), with parts that are indefinite (1ns), unless and until > they are actualized (2ns). > > > JAS: Within our *existing* universe, the sequence of events is such that > "Firstness, or chance, and Secondness, or Brute reaction, are other > elements, without the independence of which Thirdness would not have > anything upon which to operate" (CP 6.202; 1898). > > > This points to the, in my view, all-important need to distinguish between > Peirce's reflections on the very origins of *any *universe (*including *ours > and "before time was") and this, "our existing universe." This distinction > may, indeed, prove to be at the core of the disagreement we are having with > Edwina. For in our existential universe, *time is*, and follows "the *sequence > *of events" such that "Firstness, or chance, and Secondness, or Brute > reaction" *will* bring about the particular habits, the laws of *this*, *our > *universe! Peirce distinguishes these two in consideration of time > (before time was vs existential time), and I find that helpful in sorting > through the roots of disagreement in this matter. > > Finally, Jon wrote, then quotes Peirce in a passage which ought be > inscribed above the door of anyone considering his cosmology. > > "Womb" is a metaphor, but "indeterminacy" is not. The "linguistic phrase" > is indeed a symbol, but according to Peirce, so is its *object*. > > 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 ... *Not > determinately nothing ... 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; 1904) (Emphasis added by GR) > > > Your analysis of this passage should (but, of course, won't) satisfy > anyone deeply reflecting on the matter under discussion. > > > JAS: The "flash" comes *from *"the womb of indeterminacy," [a symbol, a > 3ns) GR] so the latter (3ns) must be primordial relative to the former > (1ns/2ns). The parallel is with gestation, the situation prior to birth. > Switching to Peirce's later diagram (CP 6.203-208; 1898), as I have said > before, there cannot be any chalk marks (1ns/2ns) without a blackboard on > which to draw them (3ns). > > > And this is why I recommended to Edwina, and to anyone interested in > Peirce's late views of early cosmology, reading (or, rereading) at least > the final lecture of RLT. And, I would add, if one really wants to go deep > into the matter, I'd highly recommend the relevant discussion (that is, the > cosmological/ blackboard-whiteboard discussion) in Jon's paper, "A > Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" > https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187 > > Best, > > Gary R > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Edwina, List: >> >> ET: So- there is not only a 'universal tendency towards habit-forming' - >> but a universal tendency towards chance/sporting/deviation - and a >> universal tendency to instantiation into discrete units. ALL Three are >> 'universal tendencies'. >> >> >> Thanks for confirming that 3ns is fundamental in the constitution of >> being, as I have maintained all along. Any* tendency *is 3ns, and the >> reality of any *universal *tendency reflects the primordiality of 3ns. >> If in fact there is "a universal tendency toward chance/sporting/deviation" >> and "a universal tendency to instantiation into discrete units," then this >> reflects the "really commanding function" of 3ns with respect to 1ns and >> 2ns, respectively (CP 6.202; 1898). The resulting evolution of states is >> an ongoing and continuous process (3ns) away from the ideal limit of >> "unpersonalized feeling" (1ns) in the infinite past and toward the ideal >> limit of "dead matter" (2ns) in the infinite future. On the other hand, we >> should acknowledge that when Peirce *himself *discussed cosmology, he *only >> *applied the term "universal tendency" to habit-taking and >> generalization (CP 6.209 and CP 7.515; both 1898)--paradigmatic examples of >> 3ns. >> >> ET: To consider that only 3ns is primordial moves one, I think, close to >> necessitarianism [see 6.59 etc for Peirce's argument against this view]. >> >> >> Nonsense, no one is denying the *reality *of 1ns, which is what Peirce >> specifically addressed in that paragraph. Moreover, saying that 3ns is >> primordial in no way entails that 1ns and 2ns are *reducible to* 3ns, >> which was the error of Hegel (cf. CP 6.218; 1898), or that 1ns and 2ns are >> otherwise dispensable. Instead, as Gary R. already noted, 1ns and 2ns are >> *involved >> in* 3ns and can be *prescinded from* 3ns. The entire universe is a >> continuum (3ns), with parts that are indefinite (1ns), unless and until >> they are actualized (2ns). Within our *existing* universe, the sequence >> of events is such that "Firstness, or chance, and Secondness, or Brute >> reaction, are other elements, without the independence of which Thirdness >> would not have anything upon which to operate" (CP 6.202; 1898). >> >> ET: After all - to say that 'womb of indeterminacy' is a symbol and >> therefore, describes 3ns, is not an infallible reading. As a metaphor, the >> linguistic phrase is certainly a symbol, but the physical action of a >> 'flash' is most certainly not a symbol but an indexical physical act. >> >> >> "Womb" is a metaphor, but "indeterminacy" is not. The "linguistic >> phrase" is indeed a symbol, but according to Peirce, so is its *object*. >> >> 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 ... Not >> determinately nothing ... 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; 1904) >> >> >> The "flash" comes *from *"the womb of indeterminacy," so the latter >> (3ns) must be primordial relative to the former (1ns/2ns). The parallel is >> with gestation, the situation prior to birth. Switching to Peirce's later >> diagram (CP 6.203-208; 1898), as I have said before, there cannot be any >> chalk marks (1ns/2ns) without a blackboard on which to draw them (3ns). >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary R >>> >>> I'll continue to support my reading of Peirce - which disagrees with >>> your outline. I know that some on this list have, graciously, defined me as >>> 'intelligent' - but, alas, also declared that my being intelligent does not >>> necessarily include the ability to Understand Peirce. However, I'll stand >>> by my own admittedly fallible assessment that I can understand Peirce. >>> >>> I continue to read Peirce's 1.412, not as 'incomplete and misleading' [I >>> have been accused of such an assessment of this passage] but as a valid >>> explanation of Peirce's cosmology - and fitting in quite well with his >>> other outlines in 6.193-217 etc.See also 7.514-5. >>> >>> Therefore - I disagree with your view that 3ns is primordial. I read >>> Peirce in my own admittedly fallible readings, that 'in the infinitely >>> distant past in which there were no laws" 7.514, and 'the initial >>> conditions, 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. >>> >>> My reading of the above is that Nothing - none of the three categories - >>> is primordial. All three are necessary and one can't conclude that any one >>> of them is 'more necessary' than the other. Therefore - as he outlines in >>> 1.412, 'out of the womb of indeterminacy 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....etc" >>> >>> I don't read the above to mean that any one of the three categories is >>> primordial; all three emerged and co-developed at the same time..as time >>> began. Before this - there was - Nothing. Therefore - I don't read that >>> 3ns is 'presupposed' - all three are necessary to life. So- there is not >>> only a 'universal tendency towards habit-forming' - but a universal >>> tendency towards chance/sporting/deviation - and a universal tendency to >>> instantiation into discrete units. ALL Three are 'universal tendencies'. To >>> consider that only 3ns is primordial moves one, I think, close to >>> necessitarianism [see 6.59 etc for Peirce's argument against this view]. >>> >>> After all - to say that 'womb of indeterminacy' is a symbol and >>> therefore, describes 3ns, is not an infallible reading. As a metaphor, the >>> linguistic phrase is certainly a symbol, but the physical action of a >>> 'flash' is most certainly not a symbol but an indexical physical act. After >>> all - the phrase 'rosy-fingered dawn' is another metaphor and thus, a >>> linguistic symbol, but the physical act of the sun's 'rising' is not a >>> symbol but a physical action. >>> >>> Peirce's outline of Firstness [see 1.302 and on] as not being >>> determined, 'that which has not another behind it, determining its actions" >>> [ie indeterminate] - that is, indeterminate means that there is no >>> "prospect of its sometime having occasion to be embodied in a fact, which >>> is itself not a law or anything like a law" 1.304. Then, Secondness >>> introduces determination, 'causation and statical force' 1.325. Causation >>> includes determination, where one force affects and determines results >>> of another. Thirdness introduces not indeterminacy or determinacy but >>> continuity. ..and such terms as "generality, infinity, continuity, >>> diffusion, growth, and intelligence" 1.340. >>> >>> I think that these interpretations - my own which sees all three >>> categories as necessary and none as primordial, and yours and others which >>> sees Thirdness as primordial - are obviously incompatible. I will suggest >>> that we can only continue the exploration of Peirce - even within these two >>> opposing views - but that we do not, on this forum at least, insist that >>> one or the other is the FINAL TRUTH. >>> >>> 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 .
