Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:36:34 -0700

List,
 
I have problems with this kind of cosmology. On one hand it is astounding, that Peirce´s cosmology, like his whole philosophy, seems to have anticipated many aspects of modern hypotheses (e.g. the hypothesis that there will be a GUT), and scientific insights. On the other hand it seems to me like what I would call "explainism". In the beginning there is a "why"- question: Why are there laws? This question is then answered with a "because"- answer, which contains unexplained concepts too: Habit and mind. But next there are not asked more "why"- questions such as "Why is there habit?", or "Why is there mind?", but habit and mind are just naturalized by presenting these concepts as functions of the three categories. These three categories now do not have to be questioned why they are there, as they are purely logical and mathematical entities, and clear commonsensal axioms. Though this whole argument seems consistent, I still have an uneasy feeling about the move presenting habit and mind as functions of the categories. That is, because one might argue, that habits are only existing if there is a mind, and a mind is only existing if there is a brain. Ok, it is possible to say, that the universe works like a brain too (pantheism), or that there is an external brain or quasi-brain (theism). But the whole inquiry stops at the same point as it had in the middle age and in the antique: With religion or something like it. I am not against both, personally I prefer pantheism over theism, but I think it is better to admit that there is a point where explanation has come to an end, and not to say that habit and mind are completely explained now with the categories. Because this would be a blockade of inquiry. Admitting not having explained habit and mind on the other hand would motivate us to inquire on: How do both work, what different kinds of habit and mind are there in nature, and so on.
 
Best,
 
Helmut
 
 
Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Juni 2020 um 04:04 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
An: "Peirce-L" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>, "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Betreff: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Hyperbolic Cosmology (was The Pragmatic Trivium)

Gary - I'm puzzled. Who suggested that the three categories are not always operative - in the meantime? I don't see that either Auke or myself made such a suggestion.

What I was referring to, was Peirce's cosmological outline [6.207-]  and Peirce says nothing about 'ideal limits'. Instead - his outline refers, not to the 'ideal' but to the emergence of the categories and matter/mind from 'Nothing'.

Edwina

 

On Fri 26/06/20 8:49 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:

Jon, Auke, Edwina,
 
Jon wrote: . . . according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is actual.  Instead, these are  ideal limits that correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.

I have sometime wondered, considering all the "interpretations" of Peirce's thought that, if anything he thought and wrote might be agreed upon by all Peirceans that it would be this: that until the end of that time which might have any meaning for our human race -- or for that matter, any sentient race which might consider such matters -- that "all three categories are always operative."
 
Thanks for putting it so starkly, Jon.
 
Best,
 
Gary
 
 

 

"Time is not a renewable resource." gnox

 
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York




 
 
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Auke, Edwina, List:
 
Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate "final stage" (2ns) is actual.  Instead, these are ideal limits that correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.  In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.
 
CSP:  We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8)
 
CSP:  The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of habit. (CP 8.317, 1891)
 
In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe is such that it is always becoming more determinate in accordance with Gary Richmond's vector of process (1ns→3ns→2ns).
 
Regards,
 
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
 
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells].

Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be a final state of pure habits.

Edwina

On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:

Edwina,

With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the opinion that we can only reasonably  discuss it afterwards as to its true nature.  

I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain religious expressions.  I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.   What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:

We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological evolution, that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws) and diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves, laws and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101). 

It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach. 

best,

Auke

Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :

Auke, list

Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic process.

My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency, predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.

But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one of Secondness.  My view of Secondness is that it functions within individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This refers to Thirdness.  However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy close...." But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would be dead" 6.148.

Edwina

On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu sent:

John,

A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at: http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp

A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks on Peirce's conception of God.

In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:

1. The quality of the artwork in itself

2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings

3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant thought.

and discussed in their interrelation with each other  in any case study.

best,

Auke


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to