Helmut, list
I'd agree with you - I don't see 'pure mind' or 'disembodied spirit'
as 3ns. Thirdness, in my understanding, emerges WITH Matter and is not
separate from its existence. And yes, possibility/1ns is a state and
outside of time.
With regard to the concept of a primordial Mind - with which I
disagree and which I don't interpret Peirce as accepting [while JAS
concludes that Peirce does accept a primordial Mind] - I don't see
that Peirce's cosmology has anything 'primordial'.
As Peirce wrote - "we start with nothing, pure zero. But this is not
the nothing of negation - it is boundless freedom" 6.217
And "The initial condition, before the universe existed was not a
state of pure abstract being. On the contrary - it was a state of
just nothing at all" 6.215. I'd even read this as pre-Firstness!
And his outline, in this section and in 1.412, which both describe
the same development of the universe, as an action moving from this
'Nothing' to 'something, as a "general indefinite potentiality became
limited and heterogeneous" 6.199.
That is -3ns did not 'pre-exist' so to speak and there is no
primordial 'Mind' [3ns]. Instead - the beginning is that "general
vague nothing-in-particular-ness that preceded the chaos took a
thousand definite qualities 6.200. The potentiality/chaos was a state
of freedom, chance - which as Peirce outlines THEN developed habits of
continuity. So- habits/3ns/Mind - is not an a priori mode but one that
develops as Matter develops.
My reading of Peirce is that there is nothing primordial; neither
Matter nor Mind. As he says- before the universe began - there was
'nothing, zero'. I don't interpret him as does JAS, who sees
Peircean objective Idealism as the psychical as primordial with the
physical as derived from this.
But my understanding of objective idealism is that neither Mind nor
Matter are primordial and that neither is independent, but that both
co-emerge together when the Universe began.
And, again, Peirce explains his synechism where he will "not admit
that physical and phenomena are entirely distinct - whether as
belonging to different categories of substance of as entirely
separate sides of one shield but will insist that all phenomena are
of one character, though some are more mental and spontaneous, others
more material and regular."
Edwina
On Sat 03/08/19 5:53 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jon, list, Well, this is just out of intuition: I would say, that
"pure mind" or "disembodied spirit" is not 3ns, but 1ns: Possibility.
Possibility is a state, not a process, so it does not depend on time.
Maybe even not on space? But a 3ns includes 2ns, reaction, and
reaction is a process in time and space. On the other hand, one might
argue, that a possibility includes the foreseeing of reactions. So it
ideationally includes it, and is based on 3ns, so to say, that there
cannot be a 1ns without a 3ns. So maybe you are right, that there
must be a "pure" mind which is 3ns. But how can it be pure, if 3ns
includes 2ns? Which is not pure, but brute? To solve this paradoxon,
there are two ways: Either that there never has been a beginning, as
the buddhists say, or there is and has always been a God preceeding
everything. But that would just be a regress, not an explanation. God
cannot be explained.Trying to explain God would be blasphemy anyway
for belief, so what only remains regarding this topic is belief.
Belief, I guess, is that what cannot be talked about, and
Wittgenstein said that it should be shut up about. Not that I agree,
I am against thinking bans. I think that it is reasonable and good to
believe in God, but impossible to use God for argumentation. Likewise,
I think it is futile to discuss about whether mind and matter are
depending on each other, or there can be a mind without matter. It is
the same question like that, whether the buddhists or the theists are
right, or whether there has been a God preceeding the universe or
not. You just can not know, and never will know, so the discussion is
not leading anywhere. and: What would be the benefit, if the
discussion would come to an end? None. Even the question whether we
exist on after death does not depend on it. Best, Helmut 03.
August 2019 um 17:00 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Helmut, List: On the contrary, according to Peirce, the
necessary being of pure mind (3ns) does not require time, space, or
matter. CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume
that there was in the beginning a state of things in which there was
nothing, no reaction [2ns] and no quality [1ns], no matter [2ns], no
consciousness [1ns], no space and no time, but just nothing at all.
Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not A
supposes the being of A in some mode. Utter indetermination. But a
symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate
of the absolute beginning, is a symbol [3ns]. That is the way in
which the beginning of things can alone be understood. (EP 2:322;
1904) CSP: Thus, He [God] is so much like a mind [3ns],
and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or
object that Exists, a thing subject to brute constraints, and
reacting with all other Existents [2ns],) and so opposed in His
Nature to an ideal possibility [1ns], that we may loosely say that He
is a Spirit, or Mind [3ns]. (R 843:27[5]; 1908) CSP: A full
exposition of the pragmaticistic definition of Ens necessarium would
require many pages; but some hints toward it may be given. A
disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since
all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and
every previous time. (CP 6.490; 1908) Regards, Jon Alan
Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:32
PM Helmut Raulien wrote: List, I think, Edwina is right,
because anything that happens, like an action of a mind, requires
time, and time needs a scale, and a scale needs boundary conditions.
These may be a standstill on one side, and light velocity, or
something else, maybe infinity, on the other. So i guess, there
cannot be a mind at work (at some certain, or any, speed) without the
concept of standstill or effeteness, which would be matter. Also, a
mind does not only require time, but space too, and space and matter
are two things that, according to Einstein, are prerequisites for
each other, as you, I forgot who, already have mentioned. Best,
Helmut ----------------------------- 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 [4] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] 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 .
