Helmut, List: HR: I guess "random chaos" would be the correct translation of "tohuvabohu" in the Bible (Genesis, is it, "In the begining God created heaven and earth, and the earth was ...(tohuvabohu)"), other than the sometimes incorrect translations such as "vast and empty". But, if the earth was chaotic, this chaos should have implied matter, "earth".
Fortunately, we do not have to speculate about Peirce's understanding of that Hebrew expression, which I have usually seen translated as "formless and void." There are at least three places where he employed it himself. CSP: I may mention that my chief avocation in the last ten years has been to develop my cosmology. This theory is that the evolution of the world is hyperbolic, that is, proceeds from one state of things in the infinite past, to a different state of things in the infinite future. The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of habit. (CP 8.316; 1891 Aug 29) This clearly describes what Guardiano identified as the *evolution of states* in Peirce's complex cosmological scheme. The ideal limit "in the infinite past" is "nothingness" as "the total absence of regularity." CSP: In that state of absolute nility, in or out of time, that is, before or after the evolution of time, there must then have been a tohu bohu of which nothing whatever affirmative or negative was true universally. There must have been, therefore, a little of everything conceivable. (CP 6.490; 1908) This reflects what I have pointed out about Peirce's concept of the "nothing" at the beginning of the universe as *indeterminacy *(3ns) in accordance with EP 2:322 (1904). Guardiano cites that passage in an endnote referenced from the following paragraph. NG: The blackboard when blank describes a spatial continuum [3ns] open to all kinds of possible figures that may be drawn [1ns]. Contemplating this ontological inclusiveness of the origin of the universe, I note here that Peirce’s description of the origin as "pure zero" and "nothing" is intended only in the sense that it consists in "no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. [Nevertheless, i]t is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed." [CP 6.217; 1898] It is hardly nothing in the common sense, then; or, as Peirce says, it is not "[t]he nothing of negation [that] is the nothing of death, which comes *second *to, or after, everything." [*ibid*] Rather, the "pure zero" is the possibility of *everything*: "the whole universe" or every particular existent universe in potential. (p. 321) The "nothing" of "pure zero" corresponds to "the clean blackboard" (CP 6.203; 1898), as well as the blank Sheet of Assertion--a vast *continuum *that is utterly indeterminate and always has room for further determination, no matter how much the Graphist scribes upon it. This is confirmed, finally, in Peirce's own brief commentary on the initial verses of Genesis. CSP: It is remarkable that though subconsciously yet he [the author] has perceived the need of every element which was needed for the first day. His *tohu wabohu*, *terra inanis et vacua* is the indeterminate germinal Nothing. His *Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas* is consciousness. His *Lux *is the world of quality. His *fiat lux* is an arbitrary reaction. His *divisit lucem a tenebris* is the recognition of the necessary duality. His *vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona* is the waking consciousness. Finally, his *factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus* is the emergence of Time. (NEM 4:138; 1898) Andrew Robinson has offered some fascinating suggestions for understanding the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity in terms of Peirce's Categories, citing a lecture by Martin Luther on these same verses; but that is obviously a topic for another thread at another time. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:30 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Jon, list, > > refering to: > > NG: The primordial soup of Peircean cosmogony, although so remote as to > be on the fringe of existence and comprehensibility, is best understood as > a pure state of feeling, that is, of psychic firstness, spontaneously > sporting in random chaos. For Peirce, such spontaneity is the essence of > mind, which is the principle of life or catalyst of cosmic development and > order as we know it. (p. 196) > > > I guess "random chaos" would be the correct translation of "tohuvabohu" in > the Bible (Genesis, is it, "In the begining God created heaven and earth, > and the earth was ...(tohuvabohu)"), other than the sometimes incorrect > translations such as "vast and empty". But, if the earth was chaotic, this > chaos should have implied matter, "earth". If mind is primordial is > impossible to say, not knowing the nature of God: Is He pure mind, or > material too? > > Different it is in Greek mythology (according to Wikipedia): Here "chaos" > means abyss, or emptiness, or nothingness, the state before heaven and > earth had been separated. In this case, "chaos" does not imply matter. > > In Greek mythology, heaven, earth, and the gods "emerged" from the chaos. > This sounds like Hegel or so, it is an atheistic creation concept. > Nevertheless, this self-organized emergence might be interpreted like > primordial mind, with mind being just a seed, a tautological necessity, or > a big bang-singularity. But this interpretation is somehow far-fetched, or > just one option out of two: You might as well, or even more reasonably, > interpret it the way like that mind and matter did co-emerge out of "the" > nothing. > > And Guardiano and Peirce? What do they mean by "chaos"? A primordial soup > sounds like containing matter. A primordial feeling sounds like not, but > who feels the feeling, if not a material being, and what could be able to > arouse a feeling, if not something material? > > 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 .
