List: I recognize that I am the likely target of complaints such as the one described in the first paragraph below. My intention is not at all to suppress open discussion, but to let Peirce speak for himself as much as possible, especially when it seems to me that others are misrepresenting him. As I have said many times before, we cannot properly claim to be applying *his *ideas to today's problems without first carefully establishing what *his *ideas actually were, as opposed to *our own* ideas that might have been inspired in some way by his words.
I heartily agree that Peirce's blackboard diagram (CP 6.203-208, 1898) is one of his clearest presentations of his overall cosmology, especially in conjunction with his summary statement in an earlier lecture--"The whole universe of true and real possibilities forms a continuum, upon which this Universe of Actual Existence is, by virtue of the essential 2ns of Existence, a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard" (NEM 4:345). I discuss it in detail in section 5 of my 2018 paper, "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244). However, as I say there, chalk marks do not just randomly appear on a blackboard, especially not in intelligible patterns such as the "new curve" that emerges when they "multiply themselves under the habit of being tangent to the envelope" (CP 6.206). Instead, *someone has to draw them*, and this person's relation to them is that of creator to creation--"Those who express the idea to themselves by saying that the Divine Creator determined so and so may be incautiously clothing the idea in a *garb *that is open to criticism, but it is, after all, substantially the only philosophical answer to the problem" (CP 6.199). Moreover, someone has to make the clean blackboard *itself *in the first place. That is why I interpret the primordial "ur-continuum" that it represents as *created *3ns, distinct from God the Creator who is outside it (transcendent). In short, I maintain that Peirce's cosmology as illustrated by the blackboard diagram *does *require an *Ens necessarium*. After all, he says so explicitly in "A Neglected Argument" and the contemporaneous Logic Notebook entry that we have been discussing. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:42 AM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > I would like to preface these comments by remarking that, and > especially over the past year or so, I have received more than a few off > List emails saying that some participants here, as one person put it "seem > to be deeply habituated to pushing Peircean plug-in quotes buttons to outdo > each other [and that these] same people [seem] more interested in Peircean > Correctness than open discussion." As I myself no doubt have been guilty > of at least overdoing the Peirce quotes in some of my posts, I've decided > to begin a practice of strictly limiting such quotations in this and in all > future messages, and in this case to only one. And I would most certainly > encourage more "open discussion: in the forum. > > I think that I perhaps have a somewhat different understanding of the > origins of the categories and the universe than others on the List. I don't > know if it is possible to reconcile those different views, but I will at > least attempt taking a stab at it here and, perhaps, in future posts on the > topic. > > I base my understanding of the origin of the categories and the > cosmos principally on the Blackboard metaphor in the lecture titled, "The > First Rule of Logic" in Peirce's 1898 Cambridge Conference Lecture > series, [pages]. A relevant excerpt from it is here: CP 6.203. > > I read the Blackboard metaphor as meaning something along these lines: > > Before the existence of time and the universe as we know it, there was a > state of vague potentiality, a boundless, undefined continuum. The > Blackboard represents this primal continuum. I have previously referred to > this as a kind ur-continuum (so, primal 3ns before the universe and > its form of 3ns were). > > All that we consider 1nses (all the Platonic ideas) are there only > potentially, not yet having been realized as any particular character. 1ns > may be necessary in order for there eventually to be a universe, but it's > 'expression' is, at this stage of the origin, but pure potential (Of > course, all this 'occurs' before there is time in *this* universe, even > as the language here quasi-necessarily employs temporal terms such as > 'occurs' 'first', 'then', 'eventually', etc., ). > > This primal continuity, with all its potentiality, is akin to a clean > blackboard, and represents a state of infinite possibilities without > distinct points or dimensions, where 'everything' (every character and > every determination) is but pure potential. The blackboard represents this > ur-continuum as encompassing an indefinite number of dimensions. In this > primordial state, nothing is yet determined. > > To begin the process of defining his potential, a "line" appears (in this > lecture Peirce has himself writing on the blackboard, while I'll frame the > metaphor more generally). This represents a discontinuous proto-event > introducing a contrast or distinction within the continuum. This brute > occurrence represents the first appearance of 2ns. > > But the line may not 'stabilize', may not 'stay' on the Blackboard (it can > instantaneously be 'erased', disappear). So its appearance represents only > the first step toward the emergence of a definiteness, a particular > character (that only should it 'hold'). For only when it stays on the > Blackboard does it represent a Platonic idea, i.e., a character. But if it > does, it is itself a kind of continuity, for it is derived from the > underlying general potentiality. Peirce writes that the continuity of the > Blackboard makes everything appearing on it also continuous. > > The chalk line on the blackboard represents a boundary between two > contrasting surfaces: one black, one white. This boundary represents a kind > of interaction between these two continuous surfaces, signifying the > 'pairedness' between contrasting 'elements', the white surface representing > 1ns, the *boundary* between black and white representing the relationship > between 1ns and 3ns. So 2ns appears in the passage through this pairedness > of contrasting elements, that is, in their 'defining' each other. > > Now, when a particular character gains stability and consistency ('stays' > on the Blackboard), a 'habit' is established. As more lines appear, they > create new forms and patterns, symbolizing new habits and tendencies > emerging from initial chance occurrences (again, out of what Peirce calls > elsewhere a Platonic world of ideas). Some of these habits (perhaps, > better, 'proto-habits') eventually gain stability and consistency. But, > again, I want to emphasize that this process of habit formation is rooted > in the original continuity which is inherently general and continuous. As > stated above, this pre-temporal state can be imagined as a "before" that is > not bound by our usual understanding of time. > > Space and time and matter and evolutionary logic -- that is to say, > a universe -- emerges from the interaction of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. (As I've > occasionally noted in the past, I am not a big fan of the Big Bang theory > -- actually, theories.) > > Peirce elsewhere argues as if 1ns arises 'first'. But this is not the > case in the Cambridge lecture under consideration where the ur-continuity > is the locus of the emergence of 1nses, literally the locus of every > specific character and every thing which* will* exist in *some* universe. > Is that ur-continuity Nothing? Well, as has been repeatedly noted in these > discussions, if it is, it is the nothing of pure potential (and not, as > Peirce contrasts it with, the 'nothing' of negation). > > I'll conclude with but one quotation which I hope might help both > reconcile two seemingly different views ( being,1ns 1st v 3ns 1st) as well > Peirce's use of the expression "Platonic ideas" (for it is fairly certainly > that he was much less a Platonist than an Aristotilian). > > In short, if we are going to regard the universe as a result of evolution > at all, we must think that not merely the existing universe, that locus in > the cosmos to which our reactions are limited, but the whole Platonic > world, which in itself is equally real, is evolutionary in its origin, too. > And among the things so resulting are time and logic. > > The very *first and most fundamental element that we have to assume is a > Freedom, or Chance, or Spontaneity*, by virtue of which *the general > vague nothing-in-particular-ness that preceded the chaos took a thousand > definite qualities.* The second element we have to assume is that there > could be accidental reactions between those qualities. The qualities > themselves are mere eternal possibilities. But these reactions we must > think of as events. Not that Time was. But still, they had all the > here-and-nowness of events. CP 6.200 > > In such a manner "the *general vague* nothing-in-particular-ness" becomes > every quality, every relationship, *everything* that exists and evolves > in some possible universe, even such an actual universe as ours (but > leaving room, I think, for hypotheses regarding other possible worlds). > > In our universe 3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns involves 1ns. This is > to suggest that the involutional evolution of *our* universe seemingly > took a categorial vectorial path different from that of the categories > 'before time was'. > > And none of this, as Gary Furhman just well argued, requires an *Ens > Necessarium*. > > Best, > > Gary R >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
