Dear Edwina: Your email came while I was writing mine, and thus I did not read it before sending mine.
But I think that what you quoted from Peirce at the end of yours is what I am trying to get at, namely, "...Consequently a thing in the general is as real as in the concrete" 8.14..."It is a real which only exists by virtue of an act of thought knowing it," Ben Novak *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 Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Jon, Jerry, Helmut, Kirsti: > > This chain of emails is one of the most valuable to me. Among other > things, I am a longtime student of St. Anselm, whom I believe to be much > closer to Peirce than has been noticed. > Jon, I am particularly grateful to you for both beginning this chain with > your question on thinking, as well as your most recent post where you > explain: > > Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that existence > is a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not everything > that is real exists. All three Universes of Experience are real; only the > Universe of Brute Actuality exists. Reality consists of that which has > whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes > that it has those characters; existence consists of that which interacts or > reacts with other things. Examples of what can be real without existing > include possibilities and qualities ( ), as well as laws and habits > (Thirdness); examples of what exists include actual individuals and > occurrences (Secondness). > > [This is in red because it is my custom to put quotes from previous > emails in red, and quotes from other sources in blue.] > > What I want to ask you about seems to be this: While the conceptual > framework you give makes great sense, there still seems to be a disjunction > regarding the word "exists." For example, you write,"All three Universes > of Experience are real; only the Universe of Brute Actuality exists." But > it seems that in this formulation, we can never know anything that "exists" > until it becomes "reality" for us, presumably through a brute event > occurring to a being, which then gives rise to firstness, secondness, and > perhaps to thirdness. > > Now, I am not intending to disagree with what you wrote at all. But merely > to question that there seems to be a disjunction between the ontological > statement and epistemological understanding. > > For example, if you tell me that there is a barn in the next valley, I may > say, based on my trust in you, that a barn exists in the next valley, but I > have no brute knowledge of that; there is no firstness to my knowledge. > Similarly, > scientists can postulate that dark matter exists, despite the fact that it > cannot be detected, but only inferred. > In other words, our common usage of "exists" extends far beyond what you > call the "universe of brute reality." > > Later in the passage above, you write: "Reality consists of that which > has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or > believes that it has those characters; existence consists of that which > interacts or reacts with other things." > > I sense a contradiction in this. It seems that by your earlier statement, > it is existence--not reality--which "consists of that which has whatever > characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it > has those characters," while reality only comes into being when brute > reality interacts with a being capable of *experiencing *its firstness > and then its secondness and thirdness. > > What I am suggesting is that there is a vital difference between existence > and being or beings. The difference may be seen in two different uses of > the word exists. On the one hand, the universe of brute reality exists out > there, whether we have any knowledge of it or not. On the other hand, may > we say that it does not exist for us until it interacts with us (as > beings), and becomes real (to beings) through firstness, secondness, and > thirdness. > > Thus I suggest that your formulation may be amended by reversing the > words existence and reality to read: *Existence* consists of that which > has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or > believes that it has those characters; *reality* consists of that which > interacts or reacts with *beings capable of experiencing it (e.g., > firstness, secondness, or thirdness)."* > > In other words, I am suggesting that in order to fully understand the > difference between existence and reality, we need to bring in the > distinction between existence and being. Thus it is possible to reconcile > the "universe of brute actuality" as the general statement "that which > exists," from the universe of reality, which only comes into being either > in the mind of the universe (which appears to be different from its brute > actuality), or in minds within the universe of brute actuality (which > likewise appear to be different from the universe of brute actuality). > > I am not sure I am expressing this well, but my point is concerned with > adding being (and beings) into the mix as necessary to understand existence > and reality. > > Ben Novak > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *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 Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi list, >> >> >> >> Another demonstration of CP 5.189’s vitality: >> >> >> >> C = Substance (First being) >> >> A = Being (Second being) >> >> B = Copula; things whose extremes are together touch (Third being) >> >> >> >> “since the unqualified term ‘being’ has several meanings… >> >> … if ‘being’ has many senses (for it means sometimes substance, sometimes >> that it is of a certain quality, sometimes that it is of a certain >> quantity, and at other times the other categories)…” >> >> >> >> As for why ordinality: >> >> >> >> “Now there are several senses in which a thing is said to be first; >> >> yet *substance is first in every sense*- >> >> >> >> For if the universe is of the nature of a whole, *substance is its first >> part*. >> >> >> >> Natural objects and other things both rank as substances. >> >> >> >> All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a >> subject but everything else is predicated of them. >> >> >> >> …so it is our task to start from what is more knowable to oneself and >> make what is knowable by nature knowable to oneself.” ~Aristotle, >> *Metaphysics* >> >> _________ >> >> >> >> The surprising fact, *natural object C*, is observed. >> >> But if *Being A* were true… >> >> >> >> I believe you will eventually fasten this account of CP 5.189 to your >> understanding (even in spite of me) because it is right opinion and >> movement is preferable to constant generation and confusion. >> >> >> >> Besides, if not this, *which*? >> >> >> >> Hth, >> >> Jerry Rhee >> >> >> ps: >> >> Existence is Second. Reality is the object to which the truth points. >> >> Truth is Third. At the end of inquiry, it is Absolute. >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Helmut, List: >>> >>> HR: (What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and >>> existence: No idea) >>> >>> >>> Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that >>> existence is a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not >>> everything that is real exists. All three Universes of Experience are >>> real; only the Universe of Brute Actuality exists. Reality consists of >>> that which has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone >>> thinks or believes that it has those characters; existence consists of that >>> which interacts or reacts with other things. Examples of what can be real >>> without existing include possibilities and qualities (Firstness), as well >>> as laws and habits (Thirdness); examples of what exists include actual >>> individuals and occurrences (Secondness). >>> >>> Hope that helps, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Kirstima, list, >>>> I guess that is for a reason: Ontology is the theory of what is, and >>>> "is", being, is caused by a predicate, which is something percieved, so >>>> something known (epistemology), added to a thing, that otherwise would lack >>>> reality (or was it existence?), would not even be a thing? I have >>>> understood this from this list a few weeks ago, when it went about "being". >>>> (I hope Ive got it right. What I have not yet got, is the difference >>>> between reality and existence: No idea) What this view comes down to is >>>> some sort of constructivism, in the sense, that "thing" is not something >>>> that can exist "in itself", but only as something percieved. Perception >>>> though is a capability merely of some person, so all this suits somehow to >>>> what I had written before, and corrobates the God-argument too, I think: We >>>> know that there was a world before organisms have existed. So there were >>>> things. But by whom might they have been percieved and thus turned into >>>> beings, "things" at all, when there were no organisms? Must be by God, who >>>> else, when there has not been anybody else at that time. Or so. >>>> Best, >>>> Helmut >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
