BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jeff, list
Agreed - all three categories are vital, and as such, I don't think
that we can see Peirce's objective idealism as functioning without
all three - at the same time and all as equally necessary. By the
way - no-one has
Jeff, List:
JD: In his account of the seven systems of metaphysics, he classifies his
own position in metaphysics, along with those of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and
Reid as affirming the value, significance and reality of the categories of
firstness, secondness and thirdness as being integral parts
Edwina, List:
ET: I don't need to be told, again, that I am either too stubborn or too
stupid for a discussion.
Those are your words, not mine. To set the record straight, here is what I
actually said in consecutive posts.
JAS: *Rational *people are open to persuasion, rather than dogmatical
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
O
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 (
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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
suggesti
Jon, List,
JAS: By contrast, I was not at all thinking in terms of "a categorial
trichotomy" when I offered that addendum to my cosmological summary. In
fact, I agree with you about associating synechism with 3ns, and both
tychism and idealism with 1ns. Note that this is consistent with which
Ca
Gary R., List:
GR: 'Tychism' and 'Pragmatism' in a synthesis named 'Synechism? What could
that mean?
This is an intriguing question, and I suspect that the answer hinges on
what exactly we take Peirce to have meant by "pragmatism" in that
particular context.
Just a few paragraphs earlier, he s
Gary R., List:
Guardiano associates each cosmological account with the "perspective" of a
different Category--1ns for the constitution of being (in itself), 2ns for
the sequence of events (each actualization), and 3ns for the evolution of
states (as a process). That happens to match up with which
Helmut, List,
I think most all of your concerns regarding space and time dissolve once
one considers that everything that Peirce comments on in the last lecture
of RLT expresses 'conditions' holding 'before' the alleged Big Bang
(however, there's no way to get around the language of time and space
Edwina, List,
If one takes seriously Peirce's late cosmological musings in the content of
his, as Hilary Putnam and others saw it, profound treatment of continuity
in the 1898 Lectures, *Reasoning and the Logic of Things -- and *especially
the Blackboard model in the final lecture -- one is led to
Gary, list
I agree to you and the quotations, except literally to "emergence of time", because "emergence", I guess, is something that is commonly understood as an event in an existing unidirectional time continuum.
Time, after Einstein, is connected with space in the "time-space-continuum
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I have a problem with inserting 3ns prior to 1ns in the Origin of
the Universe. That is, I don't see 3ns as a 'spatial continuum'' , My
understanding of 3ns is that it refers to the development and ac
List,
Re: synechism, I should add that Peirce elsewhere wrote:
It is that synthesis of tychism and of pragmatism for which I long ago
proposed the name, Synechism (1906, CP 4.584).
'Tychism' and 'Pragmatism' in a synthesis named 'Synechism? What could that
mean?
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond*
*
Helmut, Jon, List,
I had meant to post this earlier, but then forgot to when I got caught up
in a number of other things. Perhaps it still has some relevance. In the
post to which Helmut was responding, Jon had quoted N. Guardiano (adding,
in brackets, references to 1ns and 3ns).
NG: The blackbo
Jon, List,
JAS:
- The fundamental constitution of being as a continuum reflects
*synechism*.
- The ongoing sequences of events involving spontaneity, reactions, and
(non-absolute) habits reflect *tychism*.
- The overall evolution of states from "unpersonalized feeling" to "dead
List:
This is just a brief (and now slightly modified) addendum to my
cosmological summary. It occurred to me that each account can be
associated with a key component of Peirce's overall metaphysics.
- The fundamental constitution of being as a continuum reflects
*synechism*.
- The ongo
List:
This is just a brief addendum to my cosmological summary. It occurred to
me that each account can be associated with a key component of Peirce's
overall metaphysics.
- The fundamental constitution of being as a continuum reflects
*synechism*.
-
- The ongoing sequences of events
Helmut, List:
HR: I guess "random chaos" would be the correct translation of
"tohuvabohu" in the Bible (Genesis, is it, "In the begining God created
heaven and earth, and the earth was ...(tohuvabohu)"), other than the
sometimes incorrect translations such as "vast and empty". But, if the
earth w
Edwina, List:
ET: Therefore - there is no 'a priori' or separate MIND.
ET: I have disagreed with such a separate linearity.
ET: ... mind and matter - are not separated from each other.
ET: That is Peirce does not separate mind and matter.
You keep attacking this straw man, over and over;
Jon, list,
refering to:
NG: The primordial soup of Peircean cosmogony, although so remote as to be on the fringe of existence and comprehensibility, is best understood as a pure state of feeling, that is, of psychic firstness, spontaneously sporting in random chaos. For Peirce, such sponta
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] As NG writes - NG: It is useful to think of the "idealism" half
of Peirce’s philosophy of objective idealism as pointing to a
theory of metaphysics, and the "objective" half, pointing to a theory
of
John, List:
As a follow-up, I noticed that upon characterizing Peirce's objective
idealism as "his theory of the Reality of Thought in the universe,"
Dilworth states in a footnote, "Here I should like to acknowledge my debt
to Nicholas Guardiano’s incisive paper, ‘Peirce’s Metaphysics of Objective
23 matches
Mail list logo
