[PEIRCE-L] RE: Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

Hi Jon A, John S, List,

Thanks for the reference, Jon. I've found a number of texts to be helpful, 
including Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, which is online and free. It was 
recommended by a professor named Wildberger who has a course on Youtube on the 
subject.

Having said that, there is precious little in Hatcher's text on the generation 
of topological spaces. In particular, there is little that explains how the 
greatest continuum of possible generators of dimensions such a space might be 
related--so that the dimensions would be vague. Do you know of works on 
topology where such a conception has been explored--because I've not found much 
that is helpful in sorting out the conception that Peirce seems to be holding 
up as a kind of limiting case of vagueness and continuity with respect to how 
the dimensions might be understood in their generation and relations.

What is more, I don't see much of anything in the literature on the EG that 
uses the conception of a book of sheets to explore Peirce's suggestion. I think 
a model can be constructed that would illustrate the limiting case of a 
continuum of vague dimensions (i.e., sheets) and also help us to see how more 
definite dimension might be understood to evolve from it--as well as what is 
involved in such a model of the growth of more determinate dimensions from a 
vague continuum of sheets. For example, one of the ideas that might be explored 
is how sheets of interrogation might be pictured to evolve first--with 
relatively vague questions being scribed on such sheets in relations of 
different colors representing possibilities, and then later sheets of assertion 
and destination giving rise to hypotheses, etc.

If you know of such sources, please share them. Or, if you have ideas about how 
to construct such models in topology or in the EG, I would be interested to 
hear the suggestions.

--Jeff

Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:46 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: John F Sowa; Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jeff,

Topology is the most general study of geometric space.  It is critical here to 
get beyond the “popular” accounts and learn the basics from a real math book.  
A classic introduction is General Topology by J.L. Kelley but there are lots of 
equally good choices out there.

Jon

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard  
> wrote:
>
> John Sowa, Jon Awbrey, Edwina, List,
>
> I wanted to see if anyone have might suggestions for thinking about the 
> analogy between (1) mathematical models of the differentiation of spaces 
> starting with a vague continuum of undifferentiated dimensions and trending 
> towards spaces having determinate dimensions to (2) models for logic 
> involving similar sorts of dimensions?  How might we understand processes of 
> differentiation of dimensions in the case of logic?


-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Jon Awbrey]

Jeff,

Topology is the most general study of geometric space.  It is critical here to 
get beyond the “popular” accounts and learn the basics from a real math book.  
A classic introduction is General Topology by J.L. Kelley but there are lots of 
equally good choices out there. 

Jon 

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard  
> wrote:
> 
> John Sowa, Jon Awbrey, Edwina, List,
> 
> I wanted to see if anyone have might suggestions for thinking about the 
> analogy between (1) mathematical models of the differentiation of spaces 
> starting with a vague continuum of undifferentiated dimensions and trending 
> towards spaces having determinate dimensions to (2) models for logic 
> involving similar sorts of dimensions?  How might we understand processes of 
> differentiation of dimensions in the case of logic?


-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Clark, List:

At this point, it seems appropriate to shift this conversation to the
spin-off thread that I started last week based on Ben Novak's post and the
ones to which he was responding, which I have reproduced below.  As we have
previously discussed under the heading of Peirce's Cosmology, he explicitly
referred to multiple "Platonic worlds" as one of the stages preceding the
emergence of this actual universe of existence.  I have suggested that the
former correspond to the coalescing chalk marks on the blackboard, which
then serve as a whiteboard for the "discontinuous mark" that represents the
latter.

Regards,

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

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Clark Goble  wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  After all, chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order
> within a collection of bits of unorganized matter.
>
>
> Not according to Peirce--he explicitly held that chaos is *nothing*.
>
> It’s worth noting that the word ‘nothing’ is ambiguous in most western
> languages. An obvious example of this is the infamous debate between
> Heidegger and Carnap over nothing. Carnap and most positivists came away
> thinking Heidegger a loon because of statements like ‘the nothing nothings.’
>
> If one reads Peirce, particularly the passages from the late 80’s that
> Edwina brought up, as a neoplatonist then he’s clearly much more in that
> Heidegger camp. The main distinction is between nothing as ‘empty set’
> versus ‘not a thing.’ With the neoplatonic conception you have ‘thingness’
> as ideas, soul, spirit and so forth. You then have the One which typically
> is a nothing that is not a thing but clearly also not an empty set. In some
> forms of platonism in late antiquity such as Plotinus’ you also have prime
> matter which is conceive of as not a thing but a place to receive things
> and make them possible. All of this ends up going back to the Timaeus and
> the notions there - especially that of chora or khora which is usually
> translated as receptacle or space.
>
> When you look at Peirce subject is a kind of place for predication. So
> chaos for him is this receptical or space. It’s very much the prime matter
> that was common in neoplatonism (and which obviously arose out of Aristotle
> as much as Plato’s Timaeus)
>
> I’d add that Duns Scotus’ conception of the *ouisia *of God as nothing
> might also be playing into Peirce’s conception. I don’t know if anyone’s
> done anything on that though.
>
> One of the quotes you provided also is quite platonic in its nature.
>
> If what is demanded is a theological backing, or rational antecedent, to
> the chaos, that my theory fully supplies. The chaos is a state of intensest
> feeling, although, memory and habit being totally absent, it is sheer
> nothing still. *Feeling has existence only so far as it is welded into
> feeling. Now the welding of this feeling to the great whole of feeling* is
> accomplished only by the reflection of a later date. *In itself,
> therefore, it is nothing; but in its relation to the end it is everything*.
> (CP 6.612; 1893)
>
> This is very much a kind of relationship of prime matter to the One in
> neoplatonism. The big shift from Platonism is that prime matter is put
> first rather than the One. Although this inversion of the usual process of
> emanation can be found in various types of neoPlatonism as well despite its
> more heretical character. It’s also common in 20th century post-Husserlian
> phenomenology.
>
> I should add that 6.215-219 is well worth reading on this subject as well,
> especially relative to the Heidegger/Carnap debate.
>
> Again, let me note that this part of Peirce’s thought seems to me to be
> the most controversial. I’m not sure it’s necessary for his thought as a
> whole.
>
> "Chaos" in Peirce's usage means no regularity, no determinacy, no
> existence, no happenings, no relations, no connection, no law, no memory,
> no habit, no causation, no generality--*sheer* nothing, *blank* nothing,
> *pure *nothing--and that is precisely how he characterized mere feeling
> (Firstness) and action (Secondness) without continuity (Thirdness).  In
> other words, unless the blackboard (Thirdness) is already in
> place--"theological backing, or rational antecedent"--there can never be a
> spontaneous chalk mark with its whiteness (Firstness) and boundary
> (Secondness) in the first place.
>
> In a similar way, I might add, to us from a platonic point of view without
> Soul there is nothing. Peirce’s notion of thirdness is very similar to the
> third emanation in Plotinus’ system of emanations. It’s interesting that
> for some, such as Proclus, each of these is a separate god. It’s also here
> that the late platonists tended to inject a lot of Stoicism into