Jeff, List: Thanks for the clarification. My understanding of Peirce's view is not that order evolved from disorder, but that order--or rather, "super-order," the generalization of order and uniformity--is primordial. "For all Being involves some kind of super-order" (CP 6.490).
Regards, Jon On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > If the aim is to explain how order might have evolved from states that > were relatively disordered, it might help to get clearer about the > different kinds of relations that are indicative of order and disorder. For > the purposes of phenomenology, we seek to analyze those observations that > seem to evince signs of different sorts of order and disorder and to > correct for different sorts of observational errors. Analyzing the > different classes of relations that might be part of our different > observations will aid in this effort. > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > ________________________________________ > From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:43 PM > To: Jeffrey Brian Downard; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was > Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)) > > Jeff, List: > > I thought that our objective in this thread was--at least eventually--to > determine whether and how Peirce's mathematical and phenomenological > discussions in the last RLT lecture might shed light on the subsequent > metaphysical discussion (including the blackboard diagram), and especially > the concept of "super-order" that he introduced in CP 6.490, or > vice-versa. Did I misunderstand? So far, I am not seeing how your > examination of ordered vs. unordered dyadic relations fits into that train > of thought. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www. > LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<htt > p://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < > jeffrey.down...@nau.edu<mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > For the sake of clarity, let me point out that the interpretative > hypothesis I have been exploring is quite limited. The claim is that, on > its face, it appears that some dyadic relations are not, in themselves, > ordered. This is brought out in those that are classified as accidental and > unordered (both materially and formally). I was extending the claim to > degenerate triadic relations based on the general tenor of his remarks > about such degenerate relations in "The Logic of Mathematics, an attempt..." > > The points you are making about different sorts of collections and other > kinds of groupings (including those that are based on some shared negative > character) all seem to involve genuine triadic relations that apply to the > collection as a whole. As far as I can tell, all such genuine triads > essentially involve ordered relations. > > So, to make the point clearer, a set consisting of members that are two > distinct dots on a page is ordered if there is some general characteristic > that applies to the set as a whole. Having said that, it does not follow > that every sort of degenerate dyadic relation or degenerate triadic > relation that holds between two dots is an ordered relation. The general > property that makes the set the kind of thing that it is necessarily > involves a genuine triadic relation. That is what is involved in all such > generalities. > > You seem to be claiming that every relation, regardless of how degenerate > it may be, must involve some sort of order--otherwise the relation would > not be intelligible. If this is your claim, you may be right, but I'm > trying to explore a different line of interpretation. > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354<tel:928%20523-8354>
----------------------------- 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 .
