Jon, i have a question about your slides 20 and 23. On #20, under the heading of Objective Idealism, your proposal is that
“Continuous/triadic semiosis is real and primordial (3ns).” On #23, under “Defining Continuity,” you cite the “Categorial Vector: 3ns→1ns→2ns,” (the vector of representation in Gary R's terminology), and i think it was at this point that you mentioned the idea of an “ur-continuity” which was there at the beginning in Peirce's cosmology (referring, i think, to his 1898 Cambridge Lectures). I wonder whether (or how) all this can be reconciled with the cosmology Peirce develops in “Kaina Stoicheia”, which i barely mentioned in my CSPS presentation on Saturday, but which seems to me highly relevant to Objective Idealism. KS was written a few years after the Cambridge lectures, and Peirce does not explicitly mention either continuity or 3ns anywhere in KS; instead, his cosmology begins with indeterminacy. On EP2:322 he says: [[CSP:] If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction and no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not A supposes the being of A in some mode. Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a symbol. That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be understood. What logically follows?] The whole paragraph starting <https://gnusystems.ca/KainaStoicheia.htm#4y> here in the edition of Kaina Stoicheia on my website gives Peirce's account of what logically follows. What he arrives at is this: “That is logical which it is necessary to admit in order to render the universe intelligible. And the first of all logical principles is that the indeterminate should determine itself as best it may” (EP2:324). It is not obvious how this can be reconciled with a cosmology arising from an ur-continuity or a primal Thirdness. We could dismiss Kaina Stoicheia as anomalous among Peirce's works, or as something he changed his mind about later, but my preference (and i think yours, Jon) is to look for some continuity between KS and Peirce's other works that offer a semiotically realistic cosmology. I have a few ideas about this but would like to hear what others think before i post mine. Love, gary Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg } Everything is actually everything else, recycled. [anon] { <https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> Turning Signs
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
