[PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jeff, List: I see that Gary R. started a separate thread for this right after I did. He suggested that I re-post my cosmological analysis of CP 6.490, but that dives right into metaphysical matters, so I think that it would be better just to stick with the text itself initially. In what I

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

I suppose if everyone comments on these constant arguments as being "tiresome" maybe we are approaching a community consensus of what constitutes the sign for "tiresome" in a Peircean sense. I find it interesting that Peirce held the ethics of all of this as

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

Edwina, List: Your analysis completely ignores CP 6.206-208. You claim that none of the marks *ever *interact, and only *one *mark has staying power. But Peirce very clearly stated that *multiple *lines appear, persist, and together form "a *new *line, the envelope of those others," such that

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

Edwina, list: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man. *http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html * Hth, Jerry R On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - > > Peirce

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

Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, 6.217. I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility" 6.217. As I've said, i

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

Edwina, List: ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*. The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be? I

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

Edwina, Helmut, Jon S, Jeff, John, Clark, List, In a passage preceding the one I recently quoted twice, Peirce writes: [A]s a rule the continuum has been derived from a more general continuum, a continnum of higher generality. >From this point of view we must suppose that the existing universe

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

Gary R, Helmut: The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but

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

Jon, list, Yes, that is what I suspect too: It is not about chronologic: Creation, God, necessity, causality. Due to our limited human experience we cannot see these things other than in time flow, chronologically, so likely with a beginning. But maybe causation and time flow are not so strictly

[PEIRCE-L] Super-order and continuity, was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jeff, Jon S, List, Jeff, I agree that indeed this entire final lecture ("The Logic of Continuity" in RLT) is challenging. I also at first glance tend to agree with your suggestions as to what Peirce is up to in the several sections of that lecture. For example, concerning Peirce's "mathematical

[PEIRCE-L] Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jeff, List: Thank you for this very interesting suggestion. In order to facilitate such a discussion (hopefully), here is the passage about "Super-order" from CP 6.490. CSP: Order is simply thought embodied in arrangement; and thought embodied in any other way appears objectively as a

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

Gary R, Jon S, List, The pages you and Jon are examining (RLT 261-4) are quite challenging. The guiding aims of the lecture, he tells us on the first page, are (1) to work out the logical difficulties involved in the conception of continuity, and then (2) to address the metaphysical

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

On 11/4/2016 12:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: JFS: But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some time thereafter, there were no minds or quasi-minds that could perceive and interpret that existence. But there was a physical kind of monadic and dyadic pre-semiosis. ET: I don't know that

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I had hoped my suggestion a while back of a Platonic cosmos pre-the Big Bang > (note: of course I completely agree with Clark that one shouldn't really > bring such very much later notions into the picture, which

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

Helmut, List: The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, *assuming *that they have remained

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, other Jon, Gary, list: Thank you for your support of other Jon. This would mean that you think CP 5.189 is not a pragmatic maxim also, because it belongs to what you both classify as "logical critic”, the definition of which I suspect is clear to you both. For in that definition,

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

Helmut, List, Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), Peirce wrote *this* (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- that there is a Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say,

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

Edwina, list, I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, Jerry, List, Jon, I concur with your assessment. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, other Jon, list: Thank you for that sobering thought. "But that is an accusation that applies to both of us. These are claims that must be decided by the rights of the question. In order to move forward, we must make the rules clear at the outset. What I list are reasons to suspect..."

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jerry R.: You make CP 5.189 sound mystical, which it is not. You offer it as a candidate for "the [best] pragmatic maxim," which it is not. You want us to treat you as a "co-inquirer," which you are not--you are a *dogmatist*, and CP 5.189 is your creed. I already gave my reasons; please

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

Gary R - again, it is my strong sense that I am accurately representing Peirce's views on this issue. I don't see that I disagree with him at all - but I do disagree with you and Jon on this issue [and, obviously, on theistic issues as well]. That is - I don't see a Nothing, which is to say,

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, list: You make pragmaticism sound mystical, which it is not. What is plainer than to say that CP 5.189 is the one to which we ought to look; the one to read again and again before you move on to the others? For if the purpose is to select one over the lessers in order to spread

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

Edwina, Jon S, List, I certainly do not intend to get into a long (or even a short) discussion with you, Edwina, on this as both your position and Jon's (and mine) have been rather thoroughly and repeatedly articulated. I must say, however, that I do not see your "reading" of the blackboard

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

Gary R, list: Well, I consider myself a 'fair-minded reader of Peirce' and I certainly don't agree with Jon S's view that the blackboard is pre-Big Bang and that the three Categories are pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial. Of course the blackboard is a metaphor - set out as a

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

John, List: Excellent comments. See mine below: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 1) >> my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind

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

Jon S, Edwina, List, Jon wrote: - The Big Bang corresponds to our existing universe being differentiated out of one of these "Platonic worlds" (CP 6.208) as "a discontinuous mark" (NEM 4:345, RLT:162) on the whiteboard. Consequently, the blackboard--which precedes the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

I think this is a wonderful bouquet. Hopefully also the others will appreciate it. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > This is the intro to an attempt to articulate what I have been working on. It > is clearly not germane but Gary

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

Mike, list - I totally, fully agree. Edwina - Original Message - From: Mike Bergman To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote:

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

Edwina, List: I could post a lengthy rebuttal, but it would basically just repeat what I have already laid out in considerable detail in this thread and the others associated with Peirce's Cosmology, so I will spare everyone (including myself) the dissertation. I will simply reiterate a few

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

On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

*This is the intro to an attempt to articulate what I have been working on. It is clearly not germane but Gary kindly offered me a nest in this forum where what I did would a place to be.* *BOUQUET* *My Philosophy* *INTRODUCTION* *This bouquet is just a cluster among many. Most of those who

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

On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind universe. Yes. But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jerry, List, Inquiry begins in Doubt and aims for Belief but the rush to get from D to B and achieve mental peace can cause us to short the integrated circuits of inquiry that we need to Compute Better Answers. For one thing, we sometimes operate under the influence of fixed ideas and hidden

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

Gary, list - yes, I think that both tone and repetition are getting tiresome, to say the least. I'm not sure what you mean by your suggestion of differentiating the 'early cosmos' from 'this our existential one' contra an Aristotelian one 'once there exists a particular three category semiosic