Edwina, List, If one takes seriously Peirce's late cosmological musings in the content of his, as Hilary Putnam and others saw it, profound treatment of continuity in the 1898 Lectures, *Reasoning and the Logic of Things -- and *especially the Blackboard model in the final lecture -- one is led to the conclusion that Peirce came to posit what I've sometimes referred to as an *ur*-continuity, the Blackboard.
It is that continuity, which in RLT, Peirce identifies with 3ns in its fullness (RLT 190), upon which the original 1ns and 2ns 'sport' so to speak (although, properly speaking, Peirce uses the term 'sporting' to point to the 1nses which arise post-Big Bang, so to speak; that is, once there is a cosmos *to* evolve, and, especially, once biological evolution has begun). I see Peirce's cosmology developing over the years such that in the 1898 expression of it, he has come to see that in truth nothing *can* arise from nothing. In short, he clarifies what he'd earlier written about this germinal nothing. Otherwise, 1ns would be springing from, what? from 'absolute nothing'? That, Peirce argues, is the nothing of death, negation--not the creative nothing which contains all possibilities. Jon Schmidt and I have argued on the list time and again, and here Guardiano also argues 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. [that it] is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed." [CP 6.217; 1898] And so as JAS, NG, and I (and others, such as Ken Ketner and Hilary Putman, as I recall) have argued, especially since the publication as a single volume of the 1898 lectures as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things*, (which the two just mentioned edited and commented on) it is our sense, as Guardiano puts it, that at the origins of our cosmos is a 3ns, "a spacial continuum" which, in consideration of categorial involution, *will* involve 2ns and 1ns. It is, nonetheless, like *every **genuine* continuum, a 3ns. N. Guardiano: The blackboard when blank describes a spatial continuum open to all kinds of possible figures that may be drawn. . . [a continuum providing an] ontological inclusiveness [at] the origin of the universe, You disagree. I don't think that anything more that I or anyone else can say here is likely to change your mind. However, a review by you of that last lecture in RLT might begin to if anything might. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:58 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, list > > I have a problem with inserting 3ns prior to 1ns in the Origin of the > Universe. That is, I don't see 3ns as a 'spatial continuum'' , My > understanding of 3ns is that it refers to the development and action of > laws-of-the-organization of matter, and as such, develops, as Peirce > outlines in 1.412 and 6.217-AFTER/ or concurrently with the emergence > of instantiations of matter [2ns]. To posit 3ns before the emergence of > instances [of 2ns] suggests a necessitarian agenda - and Peirce's > cosmology rejects that '"I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the > Nothing of boundless freedom" 6.219. > > Peirce's outline, in my understanding, posits a beginning, if one can use > a temporal term to refer to an atemporal State, as Zero. Nothing. .. 'the > womb of indeterminacy' [1.412] which hardly describes 3ns, which is, after > all, laws-about-things. > > See also 6.215 - where he describes '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, not even a state of emptiness, for > even emptiness is something" 6.215]. I don't see this as referring to 3ns, > to any 'spatial continuum'. > > The action of continuity, of synechism, seems to develop as an action of > generalization along with 3ns, which is, after all, an action of > generalizing and developing commonalities. [see 1.414-416]. > > Edwina > > > > On Fri 16/08/19 3:20 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > Helmut, Jon, List, > > I had meant to post this earlier, but then forgot to when I got caught up > in a number of other things. Perhaps it still has some relevance. In the > post to which Helmut was responding, Jon had quoted N. Guardiano (adding, > in brackets, references to 1ns and 3ns). > > 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) > > > He then commented on this passage: > > JAS: 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. > > > Jon then went on to suggest that this would seem to reflect Peirce's > analysis of the first chapter of Genesis (see my translation of the Latin > just below this quotation). > > > 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) > > > I thought then that it might be helpful to add a translation of the > (mostly) Latin above. It's a bit rusty; but perhaps someone here can > provide an even better translation. I've put my translations of phrases > into Italics. > > 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. > After Tohu wabohu (which Hebrew phrase Peirce elsewhere translates as Chaos), > void and empty land is the uncommitted germinal Nothing. His the spirit > of God moved upon the waters is consciousness. His Light is the world of > quality. His let there be light, is an arbitrary reaction. His divided > the light from darkness is the recognition of the necessary duality. His He > saw the light that it was good the waking consciousness. Finally, his And > the evening and the morning were the first day is the emergence of Time. > (NEM 4: 138; 1898) > > > I tend to agree with Peirce's, Guardiano's, and Jon's analyses. > > Best, > > Gary > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:27 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 .
