Jon, List, Despite my having had some reservations about your interpretations during our discussion of Peirce's cosmology, especially regarding 'chaos' in his late cosmology, this post has completely put them to rest. Thank you! Your summary conclusion bears repeating:
JAS: To summarize, in Peirce's late cosmology, "chaos" is effectively synonymous with "pure zero," "germinal nothing," "blank nothing," "pure nothing," "nothing at all," "utter indetermination," "absolutely nothing," and "pure indeterminacy." In that state, there was "no individual thing" and "no law," "no matter" (and presumably no energy), "no space and no time"; *hence, there was obviously no **spatiotemporal universe--he is discussing metaphysical **cosmology in all these passages, not physics in general, thermodynamics in particular, or any other special science. *As you already noted, Jeff has done an admirable job of maintaining this crucial distinction. (Emphasis added) I would encourage those who are truly interested in cosmology -- both Peirce's and contemporary cosmology -- to review both your and Jeff's posts. I intend to study both over the next few days. Best, Gary R On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 6:27 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > I likewise find Jeff Downard's post today eminently worthy of careful > consideration and further discussion, but need some time to digest it > fully. For now, I would like to attempt further clarification of what I > have in mind when I suggest that the starting point for the evolution of > states in the infinite past was "complete chaos." > > GR: As I see it, in the 1898 lectures Peirce replaces the imagery of chaos > with exactly that of an indeterminate continuum of generality, the blank > blackboard on which marks can be drawn and erased, redrawn, stabilized, > etc. Here, the proto-cosmos originates not from “chaos” (unstructured > randomness) but from generality or continuity (3ns) that can *generate > *particularity > and reaction (1ns and 2ns). > > > In a manuscript that appears to reflect his preparation for those > lectures, Peirce refers to the initial state of the universe as " > *tohuwabohu *... the indeterminate germinal Nothing" (NEM 4:138, 1897-8). > A decade later, he similarly calls it "that state of absolute nility ... a > tohu bohu of which nothing whatever affirmative or negative was true > universally. There must have been, therefore, a little of everything > conceivable" (CP 6.490, 1908). Accordingly, on my reading, his introduction > of the "indeterminate continuum of generality" in 1898 *supplements *his > earlier notion of "the original chaos," rather than replacing it; and in > this cosmological context, "chaos" is *not *equivalent to "unstructured > randomness." In fact, he says the following just three paragraphs before > introducing his blackboard diagram. > > CSP: 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. (CP 6.200, 1898) > > > As I observed previously, he asserts the *reality *of "the whole Platonic > world," but the *existence *of only our own universe, the one "to which > our reactions are limited"; and he refers to "chaos" as the state of things > that came *right after* "the general vague > nothing-in-particularness." This directly refers back to what he says > another few paragraphs earlier. > > CSP: The evolution of forms begins or, at any rate, has for an early stage > of it, a vague potentiality; and that either is or is followed by a > continuum of forms having a multitude of dimensions too great for the > individual dimensions to be distinct. It must be by a contraction of the > vagueness of that potentiality of everything in general, but of nothing in > particular, that the world of forms comes about. (CP 6.196) > > > The "continuum of forms having a multitude of dimensions" that resulted > from "contraction of the vagueness of that potentiality of everything in > general, but of nothing in particular" is exactly what "the clean > blackboard" represents as a diagram--"the original vague potentiality, or > at any rate of some early stage of its determination ... a continuum of > some indefinite multitude of dimensions" (CP 6.203). In both places, Peirce > is evidently not certain about whether the "vague potentiality" and > "continuum of forms" are identical or immediately successive stages, but he > goes on to refer to "the original generality" and "the original continuity > which is inherent in potentiality ... which is essentially general" (CP > 6.204). He thus implies that continuity as generality (3ns) *precedes *both > possibility (1ns) and actuality (2ns), consistent with my outline of the > constitution/hierarchy of being. In another lecture during the same series, > Peirce describes it this way. > > 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. (CP 6.217, 1898) > > > A few years later, he writes, "Efficient causation without final > causation, however, is worse than helpless, by far; it is mere chaos; and > chaos is not even so much as chaos, without final causation; it is blank > nothing" (CP 1.220, EP 2:124, 1902). He reiterates a few years after that, > "Chaos is pure nothing," and adds--referring to his early 1890s series in *The > Monist*--"the theory of those cosmological articles made reality to > consist in something more than feeling and action could supply, inasmuch as > the primeval chaos, where those two elements were present, was explicitly > shown to be pure nothing" (CP 5.431&436, EP 2:343&345, 1905). These > post-1898 remarks are all consistent with the following summary of his > later cosmology. > > CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in > the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction and > no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no time, but just > nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately > not *A* supposes the being of *A* in some mode. Utter indetermination. > But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate > of the absolute beginning, is a symbol. That is the way in which the > beginning of things can alone be understood. ... > A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely > nothing; and therefore pure nothing was such a chaos. Then pure > indeterminacy having developed determinate possibilities, creation > consisted in mediating between the lawless reactions and the general > possibilities by the influx of a symbol. This symbol was the purpose of > creation. Its object was the entelechy of being which is the ultimate > representation. (NEM 4:260&262, EP 2:322&324, 1901) > > > To summarize, in Peirce's late cosmology, "chaos" is effectively > synonymous with "pure zero," "germinal nothing," "blank nothing," "pure > nothing," "nothing at all," "utter indetermination," "absolutely nothing," > and "pure indeterminacy." In that state, there was "no individual thing" > and "no law," "no matter" (and presumably no energy), "no space and no > time"; hence, there was obviously no *spatiotemporal *universe--he is > discussing *metaphysical* cosmology in all these passages, not physics in > general, thermodynamics in particular, or any other special science. As you > already noted, Jeff has done an admirable job of maintaining this crucial > distinction. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 12:26 AM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, List, >> >> JAS: In accordance with my label of the first cosmological "layer" as the >> constitution of *being*, you are correct that it would apply to *any >> possible* universe. However, as I see it, there is no reason to suspect >> that any other universes *exist* except our own; in fact, since such a >> conception has no practical bearings, it is "meaningless gibberish" (CP >> 5.423, EP 2:338, 1905). >> GR: From a strictly Peircean pragmatic sense that may be so. But >> 'practical bearings' sometimes occur following a leap into what earlier >> seemed like "meaningless gibberish." There are myriad examples of 'crazy >> ideas' (wild hypotheses) which once realized (e.g. quantum mechanics) >> proved to have considerable "practical bearings." That is to say that in >> the 21st century I don't believe that we need to cling so closely to 19th >> and early 20th century cosmologies since missions like the James Webb Space >> Telescope Program has shown our cosmos to be truly incomprehensibly large, >> complex, and sometimes 'weird'. Just consider the size of it! There are an >> estimated 2 to 20 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, and a total >> of approximately 200 sextillion stars (200 billion trillion stars) in >> the observable universe >> >> In any event, there are conjectures offered by modern cosmologists >> suggesting that there may be other universes than our own, or there may >> have been in the past, or there may be in the future. For one random >> example, the theory of eternal inflation (to which I don't necessarily >> subscribe) suggests that while inflation ended locally (that is, created >> our observable universe), it continues elsewhere, generating countless >> “bubble” universes, each potentially with different physical laws (a >> different selection of Platonic ideas?) >> >> JAS: Put another way, the inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite >> possibilities (1ns) indeed *transcends *our universe, but those >> possibilities that have been actualized (2ns) *constitute *our universe. >> After all, Peirce posits multiple "Platonic worlds" but only one "actual >> universe of existence," which is the one "in which we happen to be" (CP >> 6.208, 1898). >> GR: Yet as just suggested above, other possibilities, other 'Platonic >> worlds', may have given birth to any number of other universes. God only >> knows. If these exist can we ever know them? That seems even more unlikely >> than our knowing in any significant detail any of the trillions of galaxies >> in our universe. How pragmatically 'real' are they for us? >> >> JAS: My use of "complete chaos" to describe the initial state of things >> also comes directly from Peirce. "The original chaos, therefore, where >> there was no regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in >> which nothing existed or really happened" (CP 1.411, EP 1:278, 1887-8). >> "The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the >> nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity" (CP >> 8.317, 1891). "So, that primeval chaos in which there was no regularity was >> mere nothing, from a physical aspect" (CP 6.265, EP 1:348, 1892). "In the >> original chaos, where there was no regularity, there was no existence. ... >> This we may suppose was in the infinitely distant past" (CP 1.175, c. 1897). >> GR: All these examples cited are dated before the 1898 lecture series. I >> would maintain that they principally apply to the first, earlier phase of >> Peirce's cosmological thinking. I do not see 'chaos' as mentioned in the >> 'blackboard' lecture. Rather, as I see it, the selection of those "Platonic >> ideas" which would become our own universe had a sort of primal logic -- >> not chaotic at all. >> >> As I see it, in the 1898 lectures Peirce replaces the imagery of chaos >> with exactly that of an indeterminate continuum of generality, the *blank >> blackboard* on which marks can be drawn and erased, redrawn, stabilized, >> etc. Here, the proto-cosmos originates not from “chaos” (unstructured >> randomness) but from generality or continuity (3ns) that can *generate* >> particularity and reaction (1ns and 2ns). >> >> JAS: To clarify, Peirce explicitly describes the universe as "a vast >> representamen," but he does not directly connect his remarks about a >> "perfect sign" to the universe, and I am not aware of any writings where he >> refers to a "semiosic continuum." That is why the subtitle of my "Semiosic >> Synechism" paper is "A *Peircean *Argumentation," not "*Peirce's >> *Argumentation"; >> I believe that my synthesis is faithful to his insights, but I recognize >> that he never spelled it out that way himself. >> GR: Thanks for the clarification on this point: I must have incorporated >> your synthesis into my thinking; and for your clarifying two other related >> points in the conclusion of your post. >> >> 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.
