Edwina, Jon S, List, I certainly do not intend to get into a long (or even a short) discussion with you, Edwina, on this as both your position and Jon's (and mine) have been rather thoroughly and repeatedly articulated. I must say, however, that I do not see your "reading" of the blackboard passages as 'fair minded' at all, but rather it seems to me to impose your own conceptual framework on Peirce's very different one.
For example, at RLT, 263, in the midst of the long and complex blackboard discussion, RLT, 261-4, which blackboard Peirce himself refers to as "a sort of Diagram of the original vague potentiality," RLT, 261), he comments (and I've pointed to this passage before): "[A]ll this, be it remembered, *is not of the order of the existing universe,* but is merely a Platonic world of which we are, therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another until *finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be*." (RLT, 263, emphasis added). Now you may disagree with Peirce in this matter, but this is what he wrote--the blackboard diagram would seem to represent what he no doubt believed to be the character of the cosmos *before* "one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be," that is, before what corresponds to the Big Bang. It is my strong sense that Jon has consistently accurately presented Peirce's views as they appear in the 1898 lecture, and that your remarks *contra* his do not represent Peirce's clearly articulated views (as, for example, given in the quotation above), but rather your own. They seem to me less an interpretation than a misreading of Peirce, one which your conceptual framework apparently requires. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, list: > > Well, I consider myself a 'fair-minded reader of Peirce' and I certainly > don't agree with Jon S's view that the blackboard is pre-Big Bang and that > the three Categories are pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial. > > Of course the blackboard is a metaphor - set out as a diagram...but that > diagram is a metaphor of what we assume is that 'original vague > potentiality or at any rate of some early stage of its determination'. > 6.203. As I said in my earlier post today, my reading is that this > blackboard is POST Big Bang, which is why it is a 'continuum of some > indefinite multitude of dimensions'. 6.203. This is NOT the same as the > pre Big Bang Zeroness - which is NOTHING. > > And by 'continuum', I certainly don't see this as Thirdness, for Thirdness > is a continuum of *some particular habits*, not just a 'continuum and > certainly not of 'indefinite multitude of dimensions. The very nature of > Thirdness is its function to constrain novelty and insert morphological > habits. > > As for quibbling about whether the chalk mark is a point or a line - > that's irrelevant. It is a unique 'bit' of matter/mind - that is > differentiated from what-it-is-not ["the limit between the black surface > and the white surface} 6.203]. It's the differentiation from > 'what-it-is-not' that is important, for this is obviously Secondness. > > The first chalkmark exhibits only Firstness [its novel appearance] and > Secondness [its differentiation from the blackness] but would only exhibit > Thirdness if it stayed 'as it is' and if other chalkmarks appear and they > develop common habits of formation. As Peirce notes 'However, the mark is a > mere accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with > another mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency > between the two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a > mark with *stay* for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a > *habit* has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires > some incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency. This > habit is a generalizing tendency" 6.204. > > The three categories are fundamental laws of nature; their origin is with > nature - which includes the physico-chemical as well as biological realms. > Therefore - I disagree that they are pre-BigBang. I read Peirce that they > originate, as natural laws, with the BigBang's potentiality. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 12:27 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Jon S, Edwina, List, > > Jon wrote: > > > - The Big Bang corresponds to our existing universe being > differentiated out of one of these "Platonic worlds" (CP 6.208) as "a > discontinuous mark" (NEM 4:345, RLT:162) on the whiteboard. > > Consequently, the blackboard--which precedes the whiteboard, and is the > source of its continuity--*cannot *be post-Big Bang; and the three > Categories *must *be pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial among them. > > Minus your addition of the notion of a whiteboard--which additon I think > is quite helpful in representing the "Aggregations of merged chalk marks > represent[ing] "reacting systems" that aggregate further into "Platonic > worlds" (CP 6.206-208"--this is certainly the way I have always seen > Peirce's blackboard discussion and, I believe, a fair minded reader must > see it (whether or not they agree with Peirce here). As I wrote just > yesterday, in the blackboard *diagram*--*not* a metaphor (I stand > corrected)--"Peirce seems not at all to be considering the semiosic > universe we inhabit, but *the conditions* *for any, perhaps many, > possible universe(s) to arise*." > > Thanks especially for succinctly putting the argumentation into bullet > points (including pointers to the exact passages in CP 6.203-208), this > constituting an excellent summary of Peirce's 1898 argument. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Edwina, List: >> >> I could post a lengthy rebuttal, but it would basically just repeat what >> I have already laid out in considerable detail in this thread and the >> others associated with Peirce's Cosmology, so I will spare everyone >> (including myself) the dissertation. I will simply reiterate a few quick >> points about the blackboard illustration. >> >> - The blackboard is "a sort of diagram" (CP 6.203), not a metaphor; >> this means that it *embodies *the significant *relations *among the >> parts of whatever it represents. >> - The blackboard "is a continuum of two dimensions" that represents >> "a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions" (CP 6.203); and a >> continuum is a paradigmatic manifestation of Thirdness. >> - The chalk mark is not a point, or even a line; it is a *surface*, >> and its continuity is entirely derived from and dependent on that of the >> underlying blackboard (CP 6.203). >> - The chalk mark exhibits all three Categories (CP >> 6.203&205)--Firstness (whiteness), Secondness (boundary between black and >> white), and Thirdness (continuity). >> - Aggregations of merged chalk marks represent "reacting systems" >> that aggregate further into "Platonic worlds" (CP 6.206-208), each of >> which >> I call a "whiteboard." >> - The Big Bang corresponds to our existing universe being >> differentiated out of one of these "Platonic worlds" (CP 6.208) as "a >> discontinuous mark" (NEM 4:345, RLT:162) on the whiteboard. >> >> Consequently, the blackboard--which precedes the whiteboard, and is the >> source of its continuity--*cannot *be post-Big Bang; and the three >> Categories *must *be pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial among them. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary, list - yes, I think that both tone and repetition are getting >>> tiresome, to say the least. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by your suggestion of differentiating the >>> 'early cosmos' from 'this our existential one' *contra* an Aristotelian >>> one 'once there exists a particular three category semiosic universe'. >>> >>> 1) My confusion comes from my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS >>> a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three >>> categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind >>> universe. There are no categories before this 'Big Bang' or whatever began >>> our universe. >>> >>> That is, in the pre-universe, "We start, then, with nothing, pure >>> zero'....This pure zero is the nothing of not having been >>> born......boundless freedom". 6.217. My reading of this is that this pure >>> zero is NOT the same as Firstness, because, my reading of Firstness is that >>> it is an embedded state of feeling, which means, that its nature is to >>> express a quality of some form of matter/mind. Redness; heat; coldness.... >>> Therefore, my reading of this pre-universe state is that it was, as Peirce >>> notes "unbounded potentiality'. This "Nothingness of boundless freedom >>> 6.219..."is not, in my view, the same as the logic of freedom or >>> possibility [which is Firstness]. >>> >>> "What immediately resulted was that unbounded potentiality became >>> potentiality of this or that sort - that is ,of some *quality*' >>> 6.220. Now - my reading is that the unbounded Nothing [which again, is >>> NOT Firstness or Thirdness]...suddenly moved into Firstness. >>> >>> Again, 'the zero of bare possibility, by evolutionary logic, leapt into >>> the *unit* of some quality" 6.220. So again, the zero of nothing moved >>> into Firstness, where 'something is possible/Red is something; therefore >>> Red is possible'. 6.220. Again - the zero of bare possibility is NOT >>> Firstness or Thirdness. It is Nothing. Then..it moved into being 'embedded' >>> within matter - as Firstness....where *something* is possible. Not >>> unbounded possibility but *something* is possible. This is already >>> constrained possibility, very different from the 'zero of boundless >>> possibility'. >>> >>> 2) His next phase seems to be, following the basic 'vague to the >>> definite' 6.191, from a 'vague potentiality; and that either is or is >>> followed by a continuum of forms having a multitude of dimensions too great >>> for the individuals dimensions to be distinct" 6.196. These would be >>> differentiated units in Secondness [and Firstness]. Then, habits of >>> relations or Thirdness begin...and this vast multitude is 'contracted'. >>> "The general indefinite potentiality became limited and heterogeneous" >>> 6.199. >>> >>> 3) With regard to the blackboard metaphor, my reading of it is that the >>> blackboard refers to 'the original vague potentiality, or at any rate of >>> some stage of its determination' 6.203. My reading is that this >>> blackboard is POST Big Bang. The blackboard is NOT the 'zero of bare >>> possibility'. Instead, it is POST Big Bang - and suddenly, a singular point >>> appears - that chalk line. [I'll leave out Peirce-as-God having drawn it]. >>> As a point, it has *identity*, that continuity-of-being that Peirce >>> refers to ['There is a certain element of continuity in this line" >>> 6.203]..This is a unit in Secondness. >>> >>> The white chalk line appears within the act of Firstness, but is, in >>> itself, operating ALSO within the mode of Secondness - because it is >>> discrete and distinct. >>> >>> And then, habits or Thirdness, that generalizing tendency, develops. >>> NOTE - Thirdness did not pre-exist on its own; it develops as the discrete >>> units appear within Firstness and Secondness. That is, Thirdness is >>> embedded within the existentialities of matter operating within Firstness >>> and Secondness. It 'feeds and works' within these individual 'bits'...and >>> develops generalizing laws. >>> >>> That's how I see this metaphor. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:46 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>> Cosmology) >>> >>> Jon, Edwina, Clark, List, >>> >>> Perhaps this back and forth--especially the tone and tendency towards >>> repetition--has gotten "tiresome" for some readers as well as the most >>> active participants. >>> >>> I had hoped my suggestion a while back of a Platonic cosmos *pre*-the >>> Big Bang (note: of course I completely agree with Clark that one shouldn't >>> really bring such very much later notions into the picture, which is why I >>> used the modifier "loosely" when I last referred to it--but what language >>> *do* we have to distinguish the early cosmos Peirce describes in the >>> last lecture of the 1898 *Reasoning and the Logic of Things* from *this, >>> our,* existential one?) *contra* a more Aristotelian cosmos once there >>> *exists* a, shall we say, *particular* three category semiosic universe >>> might be helpful in moving this discussion forward. So, my question: Are >>> these two different? If so, how so? If not, why not? >>> >>> One thing I would be very interested in is what Edwina, Clark, and >>> others make of the final 1898 lecture, esp. the blackboard metaphor. Here, >>> as I interpret it, Peirce seems not at all to be considering the semiosic >>> universe we inhabit, but *the conditions* *for any, perhaps many, >>> possible universe(s) to arise*. Unlike the Neglected Argument essay, >>> there is no explicit mention of God here, and Peirce seems to be making a >>> purely scientific hypothesis. So, perhaps, dropping the God-talk for a >>> moment, what is Peirce attempting in RLT? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Edwina, List: >>>> >>>> Lest we get bogged down any further in yet another tiresome exegetical >>>> battle, I will simply say that I find almost nothing in your last post to >>>> be consistent with my understanding of Peirce's own thought. I once again >>>> leave it to the List community to decide which of us--if either of us--has >>>> demonstrated the more accurate interpretation. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon - as Clark has been trying to point out, you and I are locked in >>>>> terminological difficulties. Your insistence that YOUR use is identical >>>>> with that of Peirce's use - is simply your own opinion. >>>>> >>>>> My reading of Peirce is that all three categorical modes only function >>>>> within Relations. Firstness is NOT 'real' in the sense of it being a >>>>> generality [ie., the reality of the laws of Thirdness] and it does >>>>> *exist* as a *state* of 'existentiality; i.e., as a quality, a >>>>> feeling, an openness, BUT, this state *is itself an experience, >>>>> entire in itself*, and as such, it *exists* within that experience of >>>>> its fullness. There is no such thing as an unembodied Firstness! Since it >>>>> is a *state of experience*, then, it must be embodied. It is simply >>>>> 'complete', so to speak and not open to the Otherness of analysis or >>>>> reaction. >>>>> >>>>> You confine 'existence' to Secondness - which is, I feel, too narrow >>>>> an understanding of the three categories and of the term 'existence'. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree that 'pure nothing' is Firstness and Secondness in the >>>>> absence of Thirdness. I agree that without Thirdness - it would be chaos, >>>>> but i don't see this as PURE nothing. After all, 'the original chaos, >>>>> therefore, where there was no regularity, was in effect a state of mere >>>>> indeterminacy, in which nothing existed or really happened". 1. 411. My >>>>> reading of that, is that there was no matter in a mode of Firstness or >>>>> Secondness in this 'original chaos' - no 'existences' and no 'feelings'. >>>>> Nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me. >>>>> >>>>> Edwina >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >>>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:25 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>>>> Cosmology) >>>>> >>>>> Edwina, List: >>>>> >>>>> Once again, I find your use of terminology inconsistent with >>>>> Peirce's. Firstness is real, but does not exist. It has no Relations, >>>>> because any Relation requires Secondness. "Pure nothing" is the chaos of >>>>> Firstness and Secondness in the absence of Thirdness. Accepting any >>>>> matter >>>>> of fact--such as the origin of our existing universe--as inexplicable is >>>>> unacceptable, because it blocks the way of inquiry. Nothing new here, so >>>>> I >>>>> will leave it at that. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think that 'actualization' and 'cause' are two entirely different >>>>>> actions. >>>>>> >>>>>> With regard to Firstness, I see it, as a spontaneous *state* *of >>>>>> existence* which *might* then act upon/be reacted to.., in the >>>>>> 'fullness of this state'. The point of all the categories is that they >>>>>> operate within Relations; they are not isolate in themselves. Firstness, >>>>>> as >>>>>> that *spontaneous state of existence* [which might dissipate in a >>>>>> nanosecond if it doesn't *bond/relate* to another entity]...can >>>>>> provide a novel form of existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, a spontaneous mutation of a cell *might* be accepted >>>>>> by other cells and might become part of the organism's nature. Or, *might >>>>>> not* be accepted and its energy-content would dissipate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, a novel mode of transportation [*Uber*] might suddenly develop >>>>>> and might spread to other domains. Or, like many a new invention - it >>>>>> might >>>>>> disappear in a month. >>>>>> >>>>>> The causality of Firstness is the Relations that the novelty ir >>>>>> provides has on other organisms/entities. It can actually cause/effect >>>>>> changes in the larger system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I see the universe as self-emergent and self-organizing - and >>>>>> refer to 1.412 for the Peircean outline of these actions. But I don't see >>>>>> this as a transition from Firstness to Secondness, for I don't consider >>>>>> that the pre-universe was in any categorical mode [ie, not in a mode of >>>>>> Firstness, Secondness or Thirdness. It was simply nothing]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly, the 'somehow', i.e., the bridge between 'nothing' and >>>>>> 'something' is not explained beyond a 'chance flash'. But because there >>>>>> is >>>>>> no explanation, does not mean that I can or even should come up with one >>>>>> - >>>>>> certainly, science hasn't been able to do so, and since I'm an atheist, >>>>>> then, I'm not going to offer a self-organized belief in god as having >>>>>> been >>>>>> First Cause. I simply don't know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> >>>>>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:59 PM >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>>>>> Cosmology) >>>>>> >>>>>> Clark, List: >>>>>> >>>>>> Your points, as usual, are well-taken. Is it helpful at all to refer >>>>>> to "actualization," rather than "cause"? Edwina's position, as I >>>>>> understand it, is that our existing universe is not only self-*organizing >>>>>> *but also self-*generating *or self-*originating*; as Houser put it >>>>>> in his introduction to EP 1, "Somehow, the possibility or potentiality of >>>>>> the chaos is self-actualizing." This is the crucial transition from >>>>>> Firstness (possibility) to Secondness (actuality), and the word "somehow" >>>>>> reflects the fact that Houser's attempt to summarize Peirce's cosmology >>>>>> effectively leaves this step unexplained. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >>>>>>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by >>>>>>> the term of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a >>>>>>> matter of habit. Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal >>>>>>> manner >>>>>>> leads him to such conclusions. I meant 'chance or Firstness or >>>>>>> spontaneity >>>>>>> as a causal force - and there's plenty of comments in Peirce on just >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I understood exactly what you meant. My disagreement is that I >>>>>>> take "chance" (in Peirce's usage) to be freedom or spontaneity, rather >>>>>>> than >>>>>>> randomness or inexplicability; and it is certainly not something that >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> ever be "a causal force." I even quoted Peirce to support this view, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> you refer to my "tendency to read in a literal manner" as if it were a >>>>>>> bad >>>>>>> thing! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again I think we’re all talking past one an other by equivocating >>>>>>> over the term ‘cause.’ In a certain cause pure freedom or spontaneity >>>>>>> isn’t causal and in an other sense it must be. Effectively each >>>>>>> firstness >>>>>>> is its own unmoved mover. The problem is that making sense of causality >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> all when little is necessary and most things are underdetermined is >>>>>>> problematic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think causality is problematic for a variety of other reasons too. >>>>>>> For instance in terms of physics we could oppose the classic Newtonian >>>>>>> formulation of mechanics in terms of forces and masses to the >>>>>>> Hamiltonian >>>>>>> or Lagrangian forms. They’re mathematically equivalent yet >>>>>>> metaphysically >>>>>>> quite conceptually different. The Hamiltonian is the evolution of the >>>>>>> wave >>>>>>> function (what in quantum mechanics becomes the Dirac or Schrodinger >>>>>>> equation) and it’s hard to make sense of causality in terms of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Likewise again turning to Duns Scotus we have classic arguments >>>>>>> against causality being continuous. (Basically part of the same extended >>>>>>> argument I linked to earlier for a first cause) For Peirce where any >>>>>>> sign >>>>>>> can be divided it’s worth asking if we have causality at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Despite these problems of causality we all use the term causality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He referenced the same series of articles in what was probably his >>>>>>> very first draft of "A Neglected Argument" (1908), and made a few other >>>>>>> comments about it that are relevant to this discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CSP: I there contended that the laws of nature, and, indeed, all >>>>>>> experiential laws, have been results of evolution, being (such was my >>>>>>> original hypothesis,) developments out of utterly causeless >>>>>>> determinations >>>>>>> of single events, under a certain universal tendency toward >>>>>>> habit-forming >>>>>>> ... But during the long years which have elapsed since the hypothesis >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> suggested itself to me, it may naturally be supposed that faulty >>>>>>> features >>>>>>> of the original hypothesis have been brought [to] my attention by others >>>>>>> and have struck me in my own meditations. Dr. Edward Montgomery remarked >>>>>>> that my theory was not so much evolutionary as it was emanational; and >>>>>>> Professor Ogden Rood pointed out that there must have been some original >>>>>>> tendency to take habits which did not arise according to my hypothesis; >>>>>>> while I myself was most struck by the difficulty of so explaining the >>>>>>> law >>>>>>> of sequence in time, if I proposed to make all laws develope from single >>>>>>> events; since an event already supposes Time. (R 842, emphasis added) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this might be better read as there being no cause *for* >>>>>>> firstness >>>>>>> not that firstness can’t be seen a not causal. Again I suspect we’re >>>>>>> talking past one an other again but the mere fact firstness can be an >>>>>>> element in a triadic sign more or less entails a certain sense of >>>>>>> causation. (Although I prefer Peirce’s term determination although that >>>>>>> too >>>>>>> has the genealogy in problematic metaphysical understanding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should add that this problem of language for this foundational >>>>>>> event isn’t new. You see similar debates in late antiquity over whether >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> platonic One is one or ought to be considered two emanation steps. While >>>>>>> I’ll confess to finding such matters idle talk there’s usually a logical >>>>>>> reason for the analaysis. (Much like the whole disparaged “how many >>>>>>> angels >>>>>>> could dance on a pin” makes sense in the context of the debates over >>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>> in medieval scholasticism) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
