Clark, list: On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:36 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote:
> The key passage of Peirce is this one. > > If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to > account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the > whole universe was non-existent, and therefore a state of absolute nothing. > . . . > But this is not the nothing of negation. . . . 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. > > 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. > . . . > 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. (CP 6.215-220) > This text focuses on a critical distinction of CSP's dilemma arising from his chemical instincts. He chooses between the contrary, the contradiction and the negation. No material negation is possible within the the chemical sciences, e.g., atoms exist as atomic numbers. The logic of chemistry demands the chemical table of elements, each element with qualia (quali-signs), from which all compositions flow, logically and orderly. Negation is not a choice in chemical logic because the table of elements is the radexical and indexical premise of the notation. All chemical compositions are inductive and often abductive reasoning is necessary to show the relation between chemical structures and physical attributes of (optical) isomers. To you think this citation is consistent with the physics of the 21st Century? How do you integrate physical-chemical reasoning into this citation? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
