Re: Kaina Stoicheia -- Rambling Review of Past Discussions

Retrospective Index : http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Kaina_Stoicheia

Re: Martin Lefebvre
At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2005-May/002710.html
At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/002690.html

Peircers,

The diversions of summer being what they delightfully are I didn't
get back to addressing Martin's comments of May 2005 until later
that August, as recorded in either one of these two locations:

• http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2005-August/002895.html
• http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/002927.html

(Copied below)

Reading that again, I think I would certainly respond a lot less
abrasively today than I did then, but there it is for the record.
At any rate, it's probably not a good idea to jump that near the
end of Kaina Stoicheia at the outset, so I will leave this piece
for now and return to it later on.

Regards,

Jon

> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> QUIPS.  Discussion Note 74
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> ML = Martin Lefebvre
> 
> Re: QUIPS-DIS 24.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/002690.html
> In: QUIPS-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/thread.html#2602
> 
> Cf: QUAGS 4.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/002926.html
> In: QUAGS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/thread.html#2926
> 
> ML: Catching up on the discussion regarding the (im)possibility of "pure symbols"
>     (I am in complete agreement with what I have read so far by Joe Ransdell and
>     others contra Jon Awbrey's claim) I would like to propose the following (taken
>     from "New Elements", in EP II) where Peirce posits the symbol as origin of the
>     universe.  Surely one would think that if there's a "pure symbol" to be found in
>     Peirce, this is where it should be found:  the originary Nothing of the universe.
>     And yet, in reading this difficult passage one sees that this is not the case:
> 
> 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.
>      |
>      | ...
>      |
>      | A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing;
>      | and therefore pure nothing was such a chaos.  Then pure indeterminacy having
>      | developed determinate possibilities, creation consisted in mediating between
>      | the lawless reactions and the general possibilities by the influx of a symbol.
>      | This symbol was the purpose of creation.  Its object was the entelechy of being
>      | which is the ultimate representation.
>      |
>      | C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], NEM 4, 260-262
>      |
>      | C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], MS 517 (1904), pp. 235-263 in:
>      | Carolyn Eisele (ed.), 'The New Elements of Mathematics by
>      | Charles S. Peirce, Volume 4, Mathematical Philosophy',
>      | Mouton, The Hague, 1976.
>      |
>      | Cf. "New Elements", pp. 300-324 in 'The Essential Peirce, Volume 2 (1893-1913)',
>      | Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1998.
> 
> ML: As mentioned above, this is a difficult passage.
>     I'll venture a brief commentary nonetheless.
> 
> ML: The "indeterminate of the absolute beginning", claims Peirce, is a symbol, because
>     only a symbol is indeterminate (unlike symbols, whatever makes icons and indices
>     signs of some object -- resemblance and existential relation -- remains such even
>     if they are not interpreted.  Thus what makes the symbol a sign has no statute
>     whatsoever outside interpretation:  a symbol has no relation to its object
>     outside an interpretative law or habit which is what makes it a sign in
>     the first place).  Following Peirce's argument here it would seem that
>     this symbol is interpreted by another (less vague) symbol and so on
>     and so forth until the purpose that is the originary symbol finds
>     ever more individual (or replicated/existential/real -- i.e. "real"
>     in this instance is understood in existential term) manifestations
>     of it.  Now, it follows from this that the interpretant of this
>     symbol, though itself a symbol, must be indexically connected
>     to the symbol it interprets (i.e. it is an index of the relation
>     between the symbol and its object, and therefore an index of the
>     object in some respect).  Moreover, because the interpretant is
>     also a symbol of the object of the first symbol -- object which
>     is itself of the nature of a symbol in that it is general --
>     it also follows that both the symbol and its interpretant must
>     be iconic (at least in some respect):  all three of them must
>     share the quality of being symbols.
> 
> Martin, Peirce List,
> 
> ML starts out with a version of the "Converse Big Apple" (CBA) argument --
> "if you can't make it there, you can't make it anywhere" -- saying that
> if you can't find pure symbols in the "Originary Nothing" (ON) of the
> universe, then you probably can't find them anywhere.  The specious
> plausibility of this argument seems to trade on some connotations
> of the word "pure" -- if you can't find Pure X at the beginning
> of the universe, then you can't find it anywhere? ... but not
> even that rings true, not irrespective of the filler for X.
> To avoid being distracted by these nuisant nuances we have
> to go back to the definitions and/or examples that Peirce
> supplies by way of saying what he means by "pure symbols" --
> the way I see it, I couldn't care less whether he calls
> them "charmed", or "nude", or "post*modern" symbols,
> so long as he provides an adequate adumbration of
> what he means by way of the adjective adjoined.
> 
> Once again, what we have by way of intent is the statement:
> 
> | Every word is a symbol.  Every sentence is a symbol.  Every book is
> | a symbol.  Every representamen depending upon conventions is a symbol.
> | Just as a photograph is an index having an icon incorporated into it,
> | that is, excited in the mind by its force, so a symbol may have an icon
> | or an index incorporated into it, that is, the active law that it is may
> | require its interpretation to involve the calling up of an image, or a
> | composite photograph of many images of past experiences, as ordinary
> | common nouns and verbs do;  or it may require its interpretation to
> | refer to the actual surrounding circumstances of the occasion of its
> | embodiment, like such words as 'that', 'this', 'I', 'you', 'which',
> | 'here', 'now', 'yonder', etc.  Or it may be pure symbol, neither
> | 'iconic' nor 'indicative', like the words 'and', 'or', 'of', etc.
> |
> | C.S. Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 4.447
> |
> |"On Existential Graphs, Euler's Diagrams, and Logical Algebra",
> |"Logical Tracts, No. 2" (c. 1903), in 'Collected Papers', CP 4.418-509.
> | http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/existentialgraphs4.418-529.htm
> 
> Given that characterization of pure symbols, then, do we have any reason to
> expect that words like "and", "or", "of", 'et cetera', or their equivalents,
> must be found at the ONset of the Universe, if they're to be found anywhere?
> That may take a mite of pondering, even to arrange a sense for the question.
> 
> Jon Awbrey
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache