Kirsti, List: Not surprisingly, I have found that Peirce was exactly right when he stated, "Of all conceptions Continuity is by far the most difficult for Philosophy to handle" (RLT:242). I think that the light bulb finally came on for me when I stopped focusing on a line as consisting of potential vs. actual points, and instead recognized that it consists of continuous line segments all the way down. This reflects the distinction that I just mentioned in my response to Jon A. between the singular (point) and the individual (continuous line segment). A true singularity--determinate in every conceivable respect--would be a *dis*continuity, and hence is only an ideal.
As you noted, it is important to keep in mind that the points or line segments do not *comprise *the continuum; the latter is the more fundamental concept. Hence Peirce changed "the question of nominalism and realism"--rather than, "Are generals real?" it became, "Are any continua real?" (RLT:160) In that sense, I disagree with your subsequent post directed at Ben--a quality *is *general, because it is a continuum; it just has a different *kind *of generality/continuity from a habit or law. In fact, Peirce explicitly contrasted the degenerate or negative generality of a quality as permanent or eternal possibility with the genuine or positive generality of a law as conditional necessity (CP 1.427). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:46 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon A.S. > > First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey. > > Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the basic > geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his architecture > of sciences, which presents not just an architecture of sciences, but more > so a method for proceeding with any questions). > > CSP grew dissatisfied with the ancient view as well as the Kantian view of > continuity. The latist view of CSP was that there are no points in true > continuity, neither does it consist of points, however small, however near > to each other. > > BUT, as a methodological advice, he wrote that it is admissible to > separate of point in the continuity in question, IF it is done with a > deliberate aim & a readyness to leave from separation to unification as > soon as possible. > > In separating any point within the continuum in question, continuity gets > violated. But this violation may and can be mended. - The point, thus > sepateted, must be re-posioned into the contunuity it was originally > pointed out. > > To understand all this, it is necessary to truly understand the essence of > ordinal (nin contrast to cardinal) mathematics,simplest arihmetics, in the > philosophy of CSP. > > The Fist, the Second, the Third.... Then at least a little bit new Fist, > Second, Third... > > CSP came to the conclusion that his categories beared a resemblance with > the three moments by Hegel. - After having been mocking Hegel's Logic (with > good reasons!) > > What, for Peirce ( and me), is universal is change, chance (spontaneity) > and continuity. But, mind you, all together. > > From exlusion of existent individuals (points in a line) does not follow > that existent individuals do not matter. - it just follows that from any > collection og existent indivuals ( collection of points) it is not possible > to construe a continuum. - However hard it may be tried. > > Continuity as an abstraction does not amount to understanding real > continuity. With figments of your imaginations you can do (almost) anything > with a whim of your mind. But even then there is the ALMOST. The 'not > quite', a residual. > > Well. You asked about the relation between universal and general. But from > the viewpoint of taking existent individuals as the starting point. - Which > is wrong. > > It presents a nominalistic starting point. - Are generals real? was the > formulations CSP gave for the basic philosphical disagreement in the Middle > Ages between the Thomists and the Scotists. - Since then, the nominalistic > view has absolute taken the upper hand. - It rules our minds, from the > first grade at school onwards. > > I truly appreciate your posts to the list. A very good understanding they > present, with due accuracy. - Very seldom met qualities, very seldom... > > With appreciation, > > Kirsti
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
