[Inquiry] Re: Kaina Stoicheia -- Commentary

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

KS.  Commentary Note 8

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Re: KS-COM 5.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003073.html
In: KS-COM.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3070

Cf: QUIPS-DIS 24.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/002690.html
Cf: QUAGS 4.       http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/002926.html

Peirce List,

The use of "higher order propositional expressions" (HOPE's) is one way
to bring some order of concrete modeling -- concreteness being relative,
of course -- to bear on the following species of statements from Peirce:

| 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?
|
| We are not to content ourselves with our instinctive sense of logicality.
| That is logical which comes from the essential nature of a symbol.  Now it
| is of the essential nature of a symbol that it determines an interpretant,
| which is itself a symbol.  A symbol, therefore, produces an endless series
| of interpretants.
|
| Does anybody suspect all this of being sheer nonsense.  'Distinguo.'
| There can, it is true, be no positive information about what antedated
| the entire Universe of being;  because, to begin with, there was nothing
| to have information about.  But the universe is intelligible;  and therefore
| it is possible to give a general account of it and its origin.  This general
| account is a symbol;  and from the nature of a symbol, it must begin with the
| formal assertion that there was an indeterminate nothing of the nature of a
| symbol.  This would be false if it conveyed any information.  But it is
| the correct and logical manner of beginning an account of the universe.
|
| As a symbol it produced its infinite series of interpretants, which in the
| beginning were absolutely vague like itself.  But the direct interpretant
| of any symbol must in the first stage of it be merely the 'tabula rasa'
| for an interpretant.  Hence the immediate interpretant of this vague
| Nothing was not even determinately vague, but only vaguely hovering
| between determinacy and vagueness;  and 'its' immediate interpretant
| was vaguely hovering between vaguely hovering between vagueness and
| determinacy and determinate vagueness or determinacy, and so on,
| 'ad infinitum'.  But every endless series must logically have a
| limit.
|
| C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], NEM 4, 260-261
| Also appears in "New Elements", EP 2, 322-323
|
| http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/002690.html
| http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-August/002926.html

Very roughly speaking, we can model the condition of "vaguely hovering"
over a set F = {f_1, ..., f_m} of "states of (in)determination" f_j by
modeling each f_j as a proposition in a suitable universe of discourse,
and then by modeling the set F as a proposition one level higher than
the highest of the f_j in F.  It will be best if we start with a few
simple examples, going back to our base camp in the universe [p, q],
just to see if everything works out in a moderately reasonable way.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o