Gary F, I too won't say much about the matter of primal 3ns, that is ur-continuity, being at the origins of the cosmos (or not) except to briefly comment on a snippet of a Peirce quote you gave from Kaina Stoicheia
CSP: [At the beginning there was "[u]tter 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. EP2:322] GF: "It is not obvious how this can be reconciled with a cosmology arising from an ur-continuity or a primal Thirdness." GR: For now I'll say that I don't see a contradiction here. Peirce says in KS that the indeterminate nothing -- not a 'nothing' of subtraction or negation as he puts it in other writings, or, as he puts it here, not ' *determinately* nothing', -- but rather a 'symbol', for "a symbol alone is indeterminate." Now a symbol is a 3ns, in this case admittedly and necessarily a most unique one (as it occurs before there is even Time, which will become the continuity *par excellence* once there is a cosmos). It is, one might say, an ur-symbol; and, so, ur-3ns, ur-continuity. Well, again, I'll be most interested in what you, Jon, and others think before I comment further. Best, Gary R On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:50 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > 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 here in the edition of Kaina Stoicheia > <https://gnusystems.ca/KainaStoicheia.htm#4y> 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/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
