BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I don't divide up the world into separate realms of inquiry, so,
when you write:
"And, by the way, I would not identify the categories, 1ns/2ns/3ns,
which are a product of phenomenological inquiry, with the Three
Universes, which are a product of metaphysical inquiry, something
which you at least seem to do when you write "the three
categories/universes." Obviously the Three Universes have a direct
connection to the Categories, yet as I see it it is an error to
conflate or identify them. "
...then, I'm not involved in such a separation of the terms in these
disciplines. The three universes, as you note, do have a direct
connection to the Categories - and that's my point. I agree with John
that 'the entities of pure mathematics do not exist in the universe of
actuality' - but I don't see how this is a problem.
Edwina
On Wed 22/08/18 5:26 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, John, Jon, list,
Edwina wrote: So- nothing I've said denies the quotes you've
provided.
I have written enough today on this topic, yet I think that a close
reading of at least some of those quotations would refute your
denial. But for now let me just ask you, do you agree with the way
John Sowa distinguished the three universes in his recent post?
JS: I was using Peirce's three disjoint universes. The entities of
pure mathematics do not exist in the universe of actuality.
The entities in the universe of necessity, such as laws, are also
outside the universe of actuality.
For me the key phrase in the first passage above is "do not exist in
the universe of actuality," and in the second, "are also outside the
universe of actuality." I doubt that you'd agree with John that these
are "three disjoint universes" (I am assuming that by "disjoint" he
means here distinct/discrete.)
And, by the way, I would not identify the categories, 1ns/2ns/3ns,
which are a product of phenomenological inquiry, with the Three
Universes, which are a product of metaphysical inquiry, something
which you at least seem to do when you write "the three
categories/universes." Obviously the Three Universes have a direct
connection to the Categories, yet as I see it it is an error to
conflate or identify them.
In addition, as Jon just wrote: "The constituents of Peirce's third
Universe--includ[e] not only Laws, but also Signs, Habits, and
continua (EP 2:435&479; 1908)-" and, in my view, continua in
particular unequivocally distinguish the third universe from the
second.
Parenthetically, I'd add that in my view it is an error not to
differentiate the universal categories of 1ns/2ns/3ns from their
application within semeiotics, metaphysics, and elsewhere. These are
separate sciences with different goals, etc. So, note that in
Peirce's classification (following Comte) a science lower in the
classification may depend on another higher in the classification
for principles, but it does not furnish principles to those higher in
the classification, although often enough, it provides examples to
those sciences.
Mathematics, as 'first science', furnishes principles to most all
the sciences following it in the classification; and phenomenology,
2nd science (!) furnishes principles (notably, the universal
categories) to certain sciences below it in the classification (such
as semeiotics and metaphysics). (Note: as discussed here from time to
time, a science being "lower" in the classification of science in no
way implies that that science is in any way less significant or
important.)
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
No- I don't conflate or merge 3ns and 2ns. I've no idea how, after
all these years of my posts, you would come to such a conclusion
about my views of the three universes/categories. And I certainly
don't reduce the three categories/universes to two.
Just because I used the word 'embedded' doesn't mean merger or
conflation. My understanding of habits/3ns is that they, as laws,
organize matter. BUT, since they are generals, then, they are not, in
themselves, actuals; they are not existents in the mode of 2ns. To
'be' such a law, they must 'be' within matter, as the law that
organizes that matter. So, the law of organizing a bacterium isn't
'existential' [2ns] outside of that bacterium but is an integral
part, as organization [3ns] of that bacterium.
So- nothing I've said denies the quotes you've provided.
Edwina
On Wed 22/08/18 3:51 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [2]
sent:
Edwina, John, list,
Edwina wrote: The laws, per se, do not 'exist' on their own because
they are laws/generals.
I agree that most certainly laws do not 'exist' because they are
generals. But now you add:
ET: They are only operable when they function as the
habits/organization of actuality.So- they can certainly never be
'outside the universe of actually' [i.e., as Platonic Forms]; they
are embedded within actuality [Aristotle].
But saying, as you do, that laws can never be 'outside the universe
of actuality' and are merely 'embedded within actuality' is to in
effect conflate the 2nd and 3rd universes, to claim that there are
not three distinct Universes but really (I use that word advisedly as
reality is reduced to existence) only two. However, Peirce sees it
differently:
I believe the law of habit to be purely psychical. But then I
suppose matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habit.
While every physical process can be reversed without violation of the
law of mechanics, the law of habit forbids such a reversal. 1891-08-29
| Letters to Christine Ladd-Franklin | W 8:387 in Commens Dictionary
And the generalizing law is "a universal tendency":
I was led to the hypothesis that the laws of the universe have been
formed under a universal tendency of all things toward
generalization and habit-taking. 1898 | Cambridge Lectures on
Reasoning and the Logic of Things: Habit | RLT 241; CP 7.515 Commens
(emphasis added)
This "universal tendency. . .toward generalization" is, to my way of
thinking, the third universe. To seemingly reduce three Universes to
two (by conflating law, 3ns, and lawfulness, or law expressed in the
existential world, 2ns, is, to my way of thinking, not only to
undermine the reality of the third universe but the second
existential universe as well. (Note just below that Peirce writes
"existence (not reality).") 1901 | Individual | CP 3.613
…whatever exists is individual, since existence (not reality) and
individuality are essentially the same thing…
Existence has its own unique character, is "a special mode of
reality." 1902 | Minute Logic: Chapter IV. Ethics (Logic IV) | CP
6.349
Existence […] is a special mode of reality, which, whatever other
characteristics it possesses, has that of being absolutely determinate
.
Further, distinguishing the second and third universes, Peirce
writes: 1905 | Letters to Mario Calderoni | MS [R] L67
That mode of being which we call existence, the reaction of
everything in the universe against every other. . . brutally
insisting on a place is Secundan. I say “brutally”, because no
law, so far as we know, makes any single object to exist. Law only
determines in what way things shall behave, once they do exist
(emphasis added).
The dynamic character (which you and JAS have argued at length
about) is for Peirce clearly a characteristic of existence (secundan)
which he here distinguishes from reality (tertian). 1905 [c.] |
Pragmatism, Prag [R] | CP 5.503
…reality means a certain kind of non-dependence upon thought, and
so is a cognitionary character , while existence means reaction with
the environment, and so is a dynamic character…
So, as Peirce sees it, your view "abolishes objective necessity"
(the third university) in not fully accepting the independent reality
of would-be's. And he ties this to that which would be in futuro
(while existence is hic et nunc).
1905 | Issues of Pragmaticism | MS [R] 290:52
…Necessitarianism is the doctrine that there is no objective
indetermination of Modality; it abolishes objective necessity and
possibility together, and only conceives the future as that which
will have been.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkinguLaGuardia College of the City
University of New York 718 482-5690
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:46 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
John, list
Agreed, the entities of pure mathematics do not exist in the
universe of actuality.
Now, with regard to the universe of necessity, i.e., Laws/Thirdness
- which you say are outside of the universe of actuality - I'll
quibble with the wording.
The laws, per se, do not 'exist' on their own because they are
laws/generals. They are only operable when they function as the
habits/organization of actuality.
So- they can certainly never be 'outside the universe of actually'
[i.e., as Platonic Forms]; they are embedded within actuality
[Aristotle].
Edwina
On Wed 22/08/18 2:22 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 8/22/2018 2:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> "I defined actuality as anything that ever was, is, or will be
> anywhere in the universe. Most of us know more about the past
> and present than we do about the future, but our knowledge is
> irrelevant to its existence. "
>
> What's the difference, then, between your definition of actuality
and
> the definition of possibility?
I was using Peirce's three disjoint universes. The entities
of pure mathematics do not exist in the universe of actuality.
The entities in the universe of necessity, such as laws,
are also outside the universe of actuality.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
