Typically, Wikipedia defines simultaneity in binary terms. We should fight back.
All things happen in the present http://ping.fm/H1Ofo *ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Eduardo Forastieri <e...@coqui.net> wrote: > Ben, list: > Thank you for these references on Firstness, Ben, and for reminding us of > Gary Richmond’s posts; specially for the notion of a “triadic moment”. It > does not seem to me as an acquiescence to Kant’s time intuition. I am not > familiar with Schelling’s ideas on time, yet these Peircean references on > the *ego*, consciousness and Firstness (with a definite exclusion of the > notion of the Self) reminds me of some references I gathered on this > subject long time ago before CD-ROM and hypertext, but that I cherished > immensely while transcribing: 1.306 and following; 1. 324 and following; > 5.265 and following [mostly from *Concerning Certain Faculties*] 5.289; > 5.44; 5. 462; 7.364 and following; 7.531; 7.540; and many others. > I am most grateful for your recent inklings on this subject and Gary’s, > and if there is more of Peirce to it (the “triadic moment”), it would be > more than inklings. Great insights. > Eduardo Forastieri-Braschi > > > On 3/17/12 1:00 PM, "Benjamin Udell" <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > > Jason, list, > > That's a good question. In the relevant paragraph (CP 7.536, of which I > quoted only the last part), Peirce begins by saying: "It remains to be > shown that this element is the third Kainopythagorean category. All flow of > time involves learning; and all learning involves the flow of time." The > element that he was discussing was a "continuity" which he had just called > a "direct experience" (CP 7.535). (This is also another 'score' for Gary > Richmond in his April 8, 2011 post > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/6995 to > peirce-l, in which he said "It seems to me that for Peirce being present > means being present to the flow, which flow implies all three modalities: > past, present, and future....") > > I'm kind of reluctant to go out on a limb right now, having misinterpreted > Peirce's Oct. 12, 1904 letter to Lady Welby and spent a number of posts > cleaning up after myself. My guess is that, in virtue of their triadic > parts in the flow of learning, inference, and representation and > interpretation, all three times are Thirds, with Secondness, Firstness, and > Thirdness strong but not overwhelmingly so in past, present, and future, > respectively. In other words, learning-past as Secundan Third, > learning-present as Priman Third, and learning-future as Tertian Third. But > I have no strong opinion at this point! > > Best, Ben > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Khadimir > *To:* PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:29 PM > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] a question > > Would it not be fair to say that the conscious experience of the immediate > present must always be at least a second? That is the view I hold. > > Jason H. > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > > > > Claudio, Eduardo, Diane, Gary R., list, > > > I've found more of Peirce on the present-past-future trichotomy. This > time, from Chapter 1 of the _*Minute Logic*_ (1902) manuscript, in CP > 2.84 (on the past as Second), 2.85 (on the present as First), and 2.86 (on > the future as Third). From CP 2.85: > > > Let us now consider what could appear as being in the present instant > were it utterly cut off from past and future. We can only guess; for > nothing is more occult than the absolute present. There plainly could be > no action; and without the possibility of action, to talk of binarity > would be to utter words without meaning. There might be a sort of > consciousness, or feeling, with no self; and this feeling might have its > tone. Notwithstanding what William James has said, I do not think there > could be any continuity like space, which, though it may perhaps appear in > an instant in an educated mind, I cannot think could do so if it had no > time at all; and without continuity parts of the feeling could not be > synthetized; and therefore there would be no recognizable parts. There > could not even be a degree of vividness of the feeling; for this [the > degree of vividness] is the comparative amount of disturbance of general > consciousness by a feeling. At any rate, such shall be our hypothesis, and > whether it is psychologically true or not is of no consequence. The world > would be reduced to a quality of unanalyzed feeling. Here would be an > utter absence of binarity. I cannot call it unity; for even unity supposes > plurality. I may call its form Firstness, Orience, or Originality. It > would be something _*which is what it is without reference to anything > else*_ within it or without it, regardless of all force and of all > reason. Now the world is full of this element of irresponsible, free, > Originality. Why should the middle part of the spectrum look green rather > than violet? There is no conceivable reason for it nor compulsion in it. > [...] > > > > Note that there he discusses "what could appear as being in the present > instant were it utterly cut off from past and future. We can only guess; > for nothing is more occult than the absolute present." > > > Elsewhere, at the end of CP 7.536 in an undated manuscript, he says "The > consciousness of the present, as the boundary between past and future, > involves them both.": > > > > > Thus, every reasoning involves another reasoning, which in its turn > involves another, and so on _*ad infinitum*_. Every reasoning connects > something that has just been learned with knowledge already acquired so > that we thereby learn what has been unknown. It is thus that the present > is so welded to what is just past as to render what is just coming about > inevitable. The consciousness of the present, as the boundary between past > and future, involves them both. Reasoning is a new experience which > involves something old and something hitherto unknown. The past as above > remarked is the _*ego*_. My recent past is my uppermost _*ego*_; my > distant past is my more generalized _*ego*_. The past of the community > is _*our ego*_. In attributing a flow of time to unknown events we > impute a quasi-_*ego*_ to the universe. The present is the immediate > representation we are just learning that brings the future, or non-ego, to > be assimilated into the _*ego*_. It is thus seen that learning, or > representation, is the third Kainopythagorean category. > > > > So that _*consciousness of*_ the present seems to match that which Gary > Richmond said at peirce-l on April 8, 2011 about the present "moment" as > distinguished from the present "instant," the present moment as a "triadic > moment" http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/6995 > > > I also find that, in Peirce's letter of Oct. 12, 1904 to Lady Welby, if I > had looked at what he had written in the same (long) paragraph (CP 8.330) > before the excerpt that I sent, I would have seen Peirce discusses > Firstness of the quiet and Firstness of a shrill piercing whistle, and > does so in a way that supports the idea of the present as a First. For it > is the breaking of the quiet by the shrill whistle that he says involves > Secondness, and that is the breaking of one moment by another, though each > moment, taken apart, simply has its quality, its Firstness. > > > Bet, Ben > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Benjamin Udell > *To:* PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 7:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] a question > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
