Jon, List, We are clearly in agreement on one matter: that while Peirce initially conceived the universe as beginning with 1ns (possibility, “boundless freedom”), he later came to see 3ns (generality, continuity, habit-taking) as primordial. Categorial involution—that is, that 3ns involves 2ns & 1ns, and 2ns involves only 1ns—adds logical support to that later view. Additional support comes from your arguing the cosmological integration of these three as a continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), only some of which become actualized (2ns), with the sequence of events unfolding as spontaneity (1ns), reaction (2ns), and habit (3ns). As you argue, this reinforces an underlying evolutionary trajectory from chaos, through process, toward regularity (ultimately, complete regularity in Peirce’s view).
JAS: My own attempt at integrating these two accounts or phases was to suggest that the *constitution (or hierarchy) of being* is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns); while the *sequence of events* in each case when this happens consists of spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking (3ns). The resulting overall *evolution of states *is from complete chaos (1ns) in the infinite past, through this ongoing process (3ns) at any assignable date, toward complete regularity (2ns) in the infinite future. These three "layers" conform respectively to your categorial vectors of representation, order, and process. (Emphasis added, GR) You seem to be arguing that* your* three layers (italicized above)*: the constitution of being*,* the sequence of events*, and *the overall evolution of states* all apply to our existing universe. I don't agree. As I've been arguing, the blackboard metaphor suggests to me that your first layer, the constitution of being, does not apply only to our universe, but to* any possible universe* that might come into existence. Indeed, in my view 'being' is not 'constituted' in the proto-universe represented by the blackboard at all -- that's why I refer to it as a* proto*-universe. There is, no doubt, a *reality moving towards existence*; but in my reading of the lecture in which the blackboard analogy appears, out of the infinite number of 'Platonic ideas' any number of different ones *migh*t have been 'selected' so that some other universe different from ours might have come into existence (who knows? *has* come into existence). I would also not call the proto-world foreshadowing our existent cosmos "complete chaos". The ur-continuity of the blackboard already suggests that there is something in the cosmic schema that has the capacity and intelligence to select just those Platonic ideas which *can be* and *will be realized *in an actual, existential, evolutionary cosmos such as ours. What seems at all 'chaotic' to me is that infinite number of Platonic 'ideas' (characters, qualities, dimensions, categories, etc.) But do those possibilities actually represent chaos? But to return for a moment to a different cosmological disagreement, it has been pointed out before by several on the List including both of us, that the universe as a whole cannot qualify as a complex adaptive system because it does not exist within a larger environment to which it must constantly adapt. For example, in Peirce's cosmology 1ns corresponds not essentially to qualities but to pure possibility and “boundless freedom.” In his 1898 blackboard analogy Peirce explicitly *does not confine these categories to the spatiotemporal universe*; instead, he refers to “Platonic worlds” of infinite possibilities, some of which become the characters of a universe which *will come into being*. He is clear that this particular universe in which we live and breathe and have our being came out of one such Platonic world, which may even suggest, as I and others have noted, an early multi-universe model. The two later developments in Peirce’s thought which you say shaped your own synthesis, Jon: (1) the topical conception of continuity which sees a continuum as an undivided whole of indefinite parts, and (2) Peirce’s grand semeiotic vision in which the universe itself is conceived as a vast sign, a perfect sign, and a semiosic continuum from which facts (and events?) are prescinded—further explicates and extends Peirce’s cosmology. Best, Gary R On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 10:27 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Some of my earliest List participation was in threads about Peirce's > cosmology that eventually led to my very first published paper about his > philosophy--"A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the > Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244). > As I explain there, in the late 1880s and early 1890s, he indeed seems to > have held that 1ns came first (so to speak), followed by 2ns and then 3ns, > all as chance events. However, he eventually recognized that if the > tendency to take habits was truly *original*, then 3ns must have *preceded > *1ns and 2ns in some sense, as his 1898 blackboard diagram helpfully > illustrates. > > My own attempt at integrating these two accounts or phases was to suggest > that the constitution (or hierarchy) of being is an inexhaustible continuum > (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized > (2ns); while the sequence of events in each case when this happens consists > of spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking > (3ns). The resulting overall evolution of states is from complete chaos > (1ns) in the infinite past, through this ongoing process (3ns) at any > assignable date, toward complete regularity (2ns) in the infinite future. > These three "layers" conform respectively to your categorial vectors of > representation, order, and process. > > Two key developments in Peirce's thinking after the turn of the century > have subsequently influenced my understanding of his cosmology. One is his > topical conception of continuity, which was the subject of my second > published paper about his philosophy--"Peirce's Topical Continuum: A > 'Thicker' Theory" (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPTC-2.pdf). A true > continuum (3ns) is an undivided whole with only indefinite material parts > (1ns) until they are deliberately marked off as actual parts (2ns). This > matches up exactly with the constitution of being as described above, and > also perception as I outlined in a post earlier this week ( > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-10/msg00001.html). > > The other is his pioneering work in semeiotic, which led him to describe > the entire universe as "a vast representamen ... working out its > conclusions in living realities" (1903); "perfused with signs, if it is not > composed exclusively of signs" (1906); and (in my view) "a *perfect *sign, > in the sense that it involves the present existence of no other sign except > such as are ingredients of itself" (1906). He added that the only "*individual > *state of things" is "the all of reality" (1906), and my grand unifying > hypothesis is that it is a *semiosic *continuum--an immense argument from > which we prescind facts as represented by propositions, using names that we > have invented for that very purpose--which explains its *intelligibility*. > > Admittedly, Peirce did not explicitly connect all these mathematical, > phaneroscopic, semeiotic, and cosmological dots himself; at least, not in > the specific way that I have done so. Nevertheless, I do not believe that I > am somehow misrepresenting him by putting them together as I have. To > demonstrate this, I formulated my synthesis as a series of summary > statements, each of which is supported by multiple quotations and extensive > footnotes, in an otherwise unpublished online paper--"Semiosic Synechism: A > Peircean Argumentation" (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf). A > number of recent List threads have helped me work out those ideas further, > and I always welcome additional feedback and discussion. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 5:28 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> Over the many years that we've been discussing Peirce's speculative >> cosmology on Peirce-l, and my being especially interested in the topic -- >> and so having read as much about it as I've been able to get my hands on -- >> I have come to the conclusion that there is a shift in Peirce's speculative >> cosmology between the 1860's, '70's and early 80's, and his later writings >> of the 1890s, especially the Cambridge Lectures of 1898, then into the 20th >> century. I would further argue that he never dropped the earlier view, but >> developed, 'complicated', and reframed it, including as regards his three >> categories. First, I'll lay out the contrast between his earlier and later >> views as I see them, and then suggest how they might be integrated. >> >> The early cosmology would seem to suggest an emergence from pure 1ns. In >> the 1860's, '70's, and especially in the 1880's (see: "A Guess at the >> Riddle," “Design and Chance,” "The Law of Mind"), Peirce described the >> universe as originating in a state of absolute nothingness. However, he >> defined this “nothing” not as a negation, but as a positive kind of pure >> potentiality associated with 1ns: sheer, unbounded possibility without law, >> relation, or determinacy. >> From this initial 'chaos of feeling', the beginnings of 2ns: (brute >> action/reaction, resistance, etc.) gradually emerged, and then, over time, >> 3ns (regularities, habits, eventually general laws) began to form. So, this >> view is one of a world arising from formless possibility, with law and >> order as products of evolution >> >> However, by the time of his 1898 Cambridge lectures, Peirce had begun to >> imagine something somewhat different. There, in his famous 'blackboard' >> analogy, he suggests that before any actual universe could come into >> existence that there must have been a kind of general continuity (what I've >> termed 'ur-continuity', 3ns) already in place, this analogous to the empty >> but (for the purpose of the analogy)* continuous *expanse of a >> blackboard on which marks might be made. This *proto-universe* is not a >> chaos of pure 1ns, but rather a background of continuity (3ns) and >> generality (3ns) in which certain possibilities and actualities could >> appear. So, instead of laws developing out of chaos, Peirce in 1898 >> stressed that the general (3ns) itself is primordial. What comes 'first' is >> not a 'nothing' teeming with 1ns, but rather the indefinite continuum of >> 3ns, an ur-generality that makes possible both the play of qualities and >> the clash of events. (I've occasionally pointed to the "Mathematics of >> Logic" paper as Peirce himself suggesting how difficult it is for some >> (especially some of the best minds, he remarks) to imagine 3ns as 1st >> (first); but top-down logic requires it.) >> >> Can these two accounts be integrated? Well, I'm not sure of that, but I >> do think that they need not essentially contradict each other, that they >> rather represent a shift in emphasis. So: >> >> In his earlier cosmological thinking (from the side of 1ns) Peirce >> underscores that the universe had to arise from a state *prior to >> determination*, from sheer spontaneity (1ns), vague possibility (1ns). >> Without this, nothing new could ever come about. >> >> In his later view (from the side of 3ns), Peirce argues that possibility >> (1ns) cannot be considered except against the backdrop of a general >> continuity (3ns). Pure spontaneity, pure possibility would be nothing at >> all unless they subsist within a continuum, a field in which they can >> appear, disappear, reappear, connect, and stabilize. In short, the >> blackboard (3ns) provides the proto-condition for the manifestation of 1ns, >> while the chalk marks (the 'difference', 2ns) portend the proto-conditions >> for the brute emergence that will begin the process of cosmogenesis of a >> universe, viz., ours. (While I do not, some might want to think of this >> "brute emergence" initiating cosmogenesis as the Big Bang.) >> >> What I am suggesting is that Peirce’s speculative cosmology might be read >> in a kind of dialectical overlay: pure 1ns affording the possibility of >> emergence in sheer spontaneity. However, this possibility only can become a >> cosmos within the more primordial field of general continuity (3ns, >> ur-continuity, the 'blackboard' on which potential qualities and reactions >> can begin to register). >> >> The above is but a brief outline of what I've been thinking about for >> years regarding these two phases -- as I see it -- of Peirce's cosmological >> thinking. It is, of course, dependent on many sources too numerous to name, >> but here are a few: >> Vincent Colapietro, Carl Hausman, Cheryl Misak, Richard Kenneth Atkins, >> Kelly A. Parker, Jon Alan Schmidt, Lucia Santaella. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM > PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default > email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► 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 [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
