BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary - I'm puzzled. Who suggested that the three categories are not
always operative - in the meantime? I don't see that either Auke or
myself made such a suggestion.
What I was referring to, was Peirce's cosmological outline [6.207-]
and Peirce says nothing about 'ideal limits'. Instead - his outline
refers, not to the 'ideal' but to the emergence of the categories and
matter/mind from 'Nothing'.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 8:49 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Jon, Auke, Edwina,
Jon wrote: . . . according to Peirce neither the absolutely
indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate
"final stage" (2ns) is actual. Instead, these are ideal limits that
correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.
In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.
I have sometime wondered, considering all the "interpretations" of
Peirce's thought that, if anything he thought and wrote might be
agreed upon by all Peirceans that it would be this: that until the
end of that time which might have any meaning for our human race --
or for that matter, any sentient race which might consider such
matters -- that "all three categories are always operative."
Thanks for putting it so starkly, Jon.
Best,
Gary
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Auke, Edwina, List:
Just to clarify, according to Peirce neither the absolutely
indeterminate "initial stage" (1ns) nor the absolutely determinate
"final stage" (2ns) is actual. Instead, these are ideal limits that
correspond to the infinite past and the infinite future, respectively.
In the meantime, all three categories are always operative.
CSP: We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past
when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a
point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no
indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any
assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some
tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future
there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277,
1887-8)
CSP: 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 8.317, 1891)
In other words, the ongoing evolution (3ns) of our existing universe
is such that it is always becoming more determinate in accordance with
Gary Richmond's vector [2] of process (1ns→3ns→2ns).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[5]> wrote:
Yes - I like that outline by Peirce as well. The first stage if we
can call it that, after 'nothing', is chaos [Firstness] and then, the
second stage is Thirdness where Mind begins to take charge and develop
habits of organization - which permit the discrete 'bits' of
Secondness to actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to
reproduce as types [whether as chemical molecules or as cells].
Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot be
a final state of pure habits.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 2:59 PM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
[6] sent:
Edwina,
With regard to the estimate of final stage I always am of the
opinion that we can only reasonably discuss it afterwards as to its
true nature.
I have no religious inclinations, but can have sympathy with certain
religious expressions. I do like Spinoza's naturalization of god.
What I did value in Peirce's estimate is this fragment:
We exist in time, which is the second stage of cosmological
evolution, that of thirdness, characterized by both regularity (laws)
and diversity (spontaneity and "chance"). As the universe evolves,
laws and habits develop and become more and more regular. What was
originally spontaneity becomes law. But new spontaneities continue to
arise, increasing the variety of the world (Peirce, 1931-1935, 6.101).
It is an improvement on Spinoza, a process approach.
best,
Auke
Op 26 juni 2020 om 17:05 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke, list
Thanks for the link and the interesting comments about the artistic
process.
My comment is only about the cosmological outline, and of course
reflects my own view. As an atheist, I have a problem with the
anthropomorphic transformation of 'Mind' [which is a term Peirce also
uses to refer to 'god' ] to the term of 'God', which is a term
overloaded with anthropomorphic meanings, including agency,
predetermined goals, interventionism, etc.
But my other quibble is her suggestion that the final stage is one
of Secondness. My view of Secondness is that it functions within
individual particles, ie, 'bits of matter' - and as such finite
entities, will always be undergoing dissipation [unless time also
stops] . My understanding of the final stage is instead, 'the
complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and
the brute irrationality of effort to complete death'. 6.201. This
refers to Thirdness. However, as noted in 6.148, "habits would
become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the
formation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy
close...." But - Peirce reminds us that 'There always remains a
certain amount of spontaneity in its action, without which it would
be dead" 6.148.
Edwina
On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Auke van Breemen peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
[7] sent:
John,
A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp [8]
A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks
on Peirce's conception of God.
In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less
feeble only if three aspects are explicated in the study:
1. The quality of the artwork in itself
2. the way in which (or adequacy) it expresses qualities of feelings
3. the way in which it adresses (effectiveness) its interpretant
thought.
and discussed in their interrelation with each other in any case
study.
best,
Auke
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8] http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
