> On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > As Edwina and I have discussed ad nauseam in the past, I disagree with her > interpretation that there was no "metaphysical agent," that there was no 3ns > prior to 1ns and 2ns, and that mind emerged with matter such that neither is > primordial. Peirce explicitly affirmed the Reality of God as Ens > necessarium, the priority of continuity (3ns) relative to spontaneity (1ns) > and reaction (2ns), and the primordiality of mind (psychical law) with > respect to matter (physical laws). I have no desire to re-litigate that > dispute, I am just noting it for the record.
Just to note the difficulty in these discussions is distinguishing between logical analysis and temporal analysis. When one says “prior” one has to be clear in what sense one is speaking. Time is itself an organized something, having its law or regularity ; so that time itself is a part of the universe whose origin is to be considered. We have therefore to suppose a state of things before time was organized. Accordingly when we speak of the universe as ‘arising’ we do not mean that literally. We mean to speak of some kind of sequence, say an objective logical sequence; but we do not mean in speaking of the first stages of creation before time was organized, to use ‘before,’ after,’ arising,’ and such words in the temporal sense. (6.214) In Proclus’ emanation theory there’s a triadic structure of ontological constitution (monos) which is a kind of surplus (often translated as plentitude). As it proceeds you get the second part of the triad which is proceeding (prodos). This in turn causes a kind of reversal via desire for that surplus (episterophe) which is the third element and is a kind of reversal. This reversal is very similar to how the latter Peirce sees the relationship of the interpretant to the object. The sign indicates the object by way of a hint and what is produced is ‘less’ in a certain sense than the object. This reversal then creates a process that attempts to correctly represent the origin that is a surplus of what is represented. So you have pure unbounded potential turning into potential of this or that sort (6.220) which then is a kind of platonic form where the form is possibility. Secondness for Peirce results from a first flash it resembles and results from (CP 1.412) Then this process continues until “the events would have been bound together into something like a continuous flow.” This is thirdness. The important thing to note though is that first this is the same process as Proclus discusses (although he’s likely not the originator of it) and that this is ‘before’ any sense of temporality.
----------------------------- 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 .
