Ben, List: Thank you for sharing these comments. I will need to take a look at the text of Heidegger's speech, and then decide whether I have anything worthwhile to say about it myself. For now, I am simply renaming the thread topic for the sake of clarity going forward.
Regards, Jon On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Jon, Edwina, Helmut, Jerry, Gary: > > This email chain, for me, has been one of the most interesting and useful. > I greatly appreciate the efforts of all of you to arrive at the clarity of > the last few emails in the chain. The reason I am writing this is because > it seems to me that we have reached quite a turning point. For we are > suddenly in the realm of talking about what metaphysics is, which brings > right back around to the Neglected Argument. > > Let me explain. Helmut raised the question: > > HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, > something, and something is not nothing. > > He also referenced Hegel's logic. > > But a whole lot of water has gone under the bridge since Hegel's insight > into Nothing, and quite frankly, I think we need to take it into account in > talking about what Peirce is doing. For it is possible that later thinkers, > independently of Peirce, and sometimes from different disciplines or > traditions of thought, may have something to offer to the discussion--even > to the understanding of Peirce. > > On the subject that Jon so capably raised in his emails today quoting > Nathan Houser, which I quote here simply to save you the trouble of going > back through the chain: > > Indeed, Nathan Houser's introduction to Volume 1 of *The Essential Peirce* > (http://www.peirce.iupui.edu/edition.html#introduction) provides a > similar summary of Peirce's cosmology, as follows. > > NH: In the beginning there was *nothing*. But this primordial nothing > was not the nothingness of a void or empty space, it was a *no-thing-ness*, > the nothingness characteristic of the absence of any determination. Peirce > described this state as "completely undetermined and dimensionless > potentiality," which may be characterized by freedom, chance, and > spontaneity (CP 6.193, 200). > > NH: The first step in the evolution of the world is the transition from > undetermined and dimensionless potentiality to *determined *potentiality. > The agency in this transition is chance or pure spontaneity. This new state > is a Platonic world, a world of pure firsts, a world of qualities that > are mere eternal possibilities. We have moved, Peirce says, from a state of > absolute nothingness to a state of *chaos*. > > NH: Up to this point in the evolution of the world, all we have is real > possibility, firstness; nothing is actual yet--there is no secondness. > Somehow, the possibility or potentiality of the chaos is self-actualizing, > and the second great step in the evolution of the world is that in which > the world of actuality emerges from the Platonic world of qualities. The > world of secondness is a world of events, or facts, whose being consists in > the mutual interaction of actualized qualities. But this world does not yet > involve thirdness, or law. > > NH: The transition to a world of thirdness, the third great step in > cosmic evolution, is the result of a habit-taking tendency inherent in the > world of events ... A habit-taking tendency is a generalizing tendency, and > the emergence of all uniformities, from time and space to physical matter > and even the laws of nature, can be explained as the result of the > universe's tendency to take habits. > > > Now, many of the discussants have taken this quite further, and have > entered into a discussion of the nothing. > > Well, I would like to propose the relevance here of Martin Heidegger's > maiden speech, "What is Metaphysics?" In that speech, Heidegger deals > directly with the issue Helmut raised shortly after Jon's email: > > Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, something, > and something is not nothing. But now I am not still so sure of this logic. > Because who said, that a nothing has to exist to be nothing? Maybe it did > not exist, but merely was real? > > Now that is precisely the issue that Heidegger deals with in his speech, > and claims a couple of things of immediate relevance here. First, he claims > that this nothing is the subject matter of a whole discipline and field of > thought, i.e., metaphysics. Second, he shows how this nothing can not only > be the subject of a discipline, but also something identified and > experienced in daily life. > > But he even does more than that. He argues that the nothing can be > experienced by persons in certain moods, which he identifies as anxiety and > boredom. In a later work, *Introduction to Metaphysics*, he identifies > more moods, such as extreme happiness (e.g., on the day of one's wedding > for example). I suggest that this list may not he exhaustive, but may > include the "play of amusement" that Peirce refers to in the Neglected > Argument. > > If such a possibility is entertained, then there may be a basis for seeing > a major clarification resulting from relating Heideggher's discussion of > the Nothing to Peirce's comments as summarized by Houser, and further > elaborated by Jon, as well as seeing a connection between Heidegger's > understanding of nothing as the subject matter of metaphysics, and Peirce's > Neglected Argument. > > Here is Heidegger's maiden 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 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, >>> because something that exists is, well, something, and something is not >>> nothing. But now I am not still so sure of this logic. Because who said, >>> that a nothing has to exist to be nothing? Maybe it did not exist, but >>> merely was real? A real but nonexistent nothing might remain in its >>> sleeping mode forever, if no God shows up. I cannot pin it down, but have >>> the feeling, that the difference between real and existing requires theism, >>> and if you do not see the difference, one (eg.I) may be an agnostic. I am, >>> because I thought I had understood the terms "existing", "real", "being" >>> (this thing about the predicate), but somehow lost it again. Like faith: It >>> is an on-off-relationship somehow. I feel I cannot pin down God. But I like >>> this state better than to be somebody who claims to know God well. These >>> folks are dangerous, you just have to switch on the TV. So I want to remain >>> an agnostic. >>> 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 .
