BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I think that Peirce's cosmological outlines and references to
'nothing' - both in 1.412 and 6.215 and on - are not the 'nothing of
death/negation' - but, this still doesn't, to me, set up any
suggestion of a primordial 3ns. I follow Peirce's outline which puts
3ns as the development of laws - and such laws develop afterwards,
as matter develops. Not before. The laws are not primordial and I
think Peirce has said that often enough. His own outline of the
origin are that first - is 1ns, then 2nd, then 3ns. I don't see any
reference to a pre-existent [and it would have to be pre-existent]
'continuum of 3ns.
That is - you say that the secondary literature posits a primary 3ns
- but I don't see this in Peirce.
And on another issue - yes, it's interesting - there is scientific
discussion over whether a Big Bang was the origin or not, but that's
not relevant here, I think.
Edwina
On Fri 16/08/19 4:49 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
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 ThinkingCommunication Studies LaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:58 PM Edwina Taborsky 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 [2]
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 ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:27 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:30 PM Helmut Raulien 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
