Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
aiden speech at the University of Marburg, "What is Metaphysics?" http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Heidegger,Martin/Heidegger.Martin..What%20Is%20Metaphysics.htm Ben *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 Telephone: (814) 808-5702 *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 1) Pure zero is NOT the continuum of Thirdness. Because Thirdness is made > up of general habits. > I agree that 'nothing in particular necessarily resulted' - i.e., there > was no agential Mind and no necessary model of the universe. Our universe > could have spontaneously generated some other atom/chemical/whatever as > basic. > > 2) I don't confine 'freedom' to persons. Molecules and cells have it! > Birds, animals, insects..have freedom. > > 3) The worst thing about a religious [or other?] group is that it is made > up of flawed people? I would say that is one of the best things, for 'being > flawed' means that we are aware of our existentiality as 'merely a version > of a Type'...and can enjoy our differences. > > Edwina > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:04 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology > > Helmut, List: > > HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, > something, and something is not nothing. > > > This led me to think of the following quote from Peirce. > > CSP: We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the > nothing of negation. For *not *means *other than*, and *other *is merely > a synonym of the ordinal numeral *second*. As such it implies a first; > while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of > negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, > everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. > There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. > It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or > foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited > possibility--boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It > is boundless freedom. So of *potential *being there was in that initial > state no lack. (CP 6.217; ) > > > What he wrote next is consistent with a point that I have been trying to > make recently. > > CSP: Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state > of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless > nothing in particular necessarily resulted. (CP 6.218) > > > The key word here is *necessarily*, since obviously Peirce's cosmology > requires that *something *resulted. He went on to contrast his approach > with Hegel's, and then gave this conclusion. > > CSP: I say that nothing *necessarily *resulted from the Nothing of > boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But > such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or > potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. For if it does not annul > itself, it remains a completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a > completely idle potentiality is annulled by its complete idleness. I do > not mean that potentiality immediately results in actuality. Mediately > perhaps it does; but what immediately resulted was that unbounded > potentiality became potentiality of this or that sort--that is, of some > *quality*. Thus the zero of bare possibility, by evolutionary logic, > leapt into the *unit *of some quality. This was hypothetic inference. > (CP 6.219-220) > > > Here he used the word "freedom," which is again something that we > attribute to *persons*. He suggested that, "Mediately perhaps," bare > possibility (Firstness) results in actuality (Secondness); i.e., something > (or Someone) else must *mediate *(Thirdness) that transition. He then > referred to the immediate process of "unbounded potentiality" becoming "the > unit of some quality" as "hypothetic inference," which can only take place > within a mind (or Mind). > > HR: So I want to remain an agnostic. > > > I can understand the sentiment--I often say th
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
1) Pure zero is NOT the continuum of Thirdness. Because Thirdness is made up of general habits. I agree that 'nothing in particular necessarily resulted' - i.e., there was no agential Mind and no necessary model of the universe. Our universe could have spontaneously generated some other atom/chemical/whatever as basic. 2) I don't confine 'freedom' to persons. Molecules and cells have it! Birds, animals, insects..have freedom. 3) The worst thing about a religious [or other?] group is that it is made up of flawed people? I would say that is one of the best things, for 'being flawed' means that we are aware of our existentiality as 'merely a version of a Type'...and can enjoy our differences. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Helmut Raulien Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:04 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology Helmut, List: HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, something, and something is not nothing. This led me to think of the following quote from Peirce. CSP: We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility--boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom. So of potential being there was in that initial state no lack. (CP 6.217; ) What he wrote next is consistent with a point that I have been trying to make recently. CSP: Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted. (CP 6.218) The key word here is necessarily, since obviously Peirce's cosmology requires that something resulted. He went on to contrast his approach with Hegel's, and then gave this conclusion. CSP: I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. For if it does not annul itself, it remains a completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a completely idle potentiality is annulled by its complete idleness. I do not mean that potentiality immediately results in actuality. Mediately perhaps it does; but what immediately resulted was that unbounded potentiality became potentiality of this or that sort--that is, of some quality. Thus the zero of bare possibility, by evolutionary logic, leapt into the unit of some quality. This was hypothetic inference. (CP 6.219-220) Here he used the word "freedom," which is again something that we attribute to persons. He suggested that, "Mediately perhaps," bare possibility (Firstness) results in actuality (Secondness); i.e., something (or Someone) else must mediate (Thirdness) that transition. He then referred to the immediate process of "unbounded potentiality" becoming "the unit of some quality" as "hypothetic inference," which can only take place within a mind (or Mind). HR: So I want to remain an agnostic. I can understand the sentiment--I often say that the worst thing about any religious group is that it is made up of flawed people--but I hope that you will continue inquiring. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: Edwina, Jon, Gary, list, I think I am an agnostic. "Everything could come from nothing" (Edwina) reminds me of having read (merely) the (very) beginning of Hegels, I think it was "Science of logic". Hegel showed how dialectics leads to the evolution from "nothing" to "something", and then on to all other things, like life. I have understood it like: "Nothing" is a thesis, which cannot exists of its own, because existence requires that it is something, i.e. "The nothing", which means that "nothing" is "something", and there is a something else, which is not nothing, as antithesis. Or something like that. I found this argumentation quite catchy. Nothing cannot exist,
