BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
I made the decision, since your very public post that you considered
me either [or both] too stubborn and/or too stupid to discuss Peirce
with you [-which actually means, to accept Your Opinion as The Right
One] - that I would no longer discuss anything with you. I don't need
to be told, again, that I am either too stubborn or too stupid for a
discussion.
Edwina
On Fri 16/08/19 6:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of
laws ...
There is much more to 3ns than "the development of laws."
ET: ... and such laws develop afterwards, as matter develops. Not
before.
Physical laws govern matter and developed from the psychical law
(habit) of mind.
ET: His own outline of the origin are that first - is 1ns, then
2nd, then 3ns.
Indeed, for each actualization of a possibility, 1ns is temporally
primordial (from the beginning) in the sequence of events.
ET: I don't see any reference to a pre-existent [and it would have
to be pre-existent] continuum of 3ns.
Existence is 2ns, but 3ns is logically primordial (basic and
fundamental) in the constitution of being. Without a blackboard,
there can be no chalk marks.
As Gary R. said, you disagree, and nothing we can say here is likely
to change your mind.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
