Home
CP 2.84. There is binarity in the idea of brute force; it is its principal ingredient. For the idea of brute force is little more than that of reaction; and this is pure binarity. Imagine two objects which are not merely thought as two, but of which something is true such that neither could be removed without destroying the fact supposed true of the other. Take, for example, a husband and wife. Here there is nothing but a real twoness; but it constitutes a reaction, in the sense that the husband makes the wife a wife in fact (not merely in some comparing thought); while the wife makes the husband a husband. A brute force is only a complication of binarities. It supposes not only two related objects, but that in addition to this state of things there is a second subsequent state. It further supposes two tendencies, one, of the one relate, tending to change the first relation in one way in the second state; the other, of the other relate, tending to change the same relation in a second way. Both those changes are in some way combined, so that each tendency is to some degree followed, to some degree modified. This is what we mean by force. It is almost pure binarity. The bruteness will consist in the absence of any reason, regularity, or rule, which should take part in the action as a third or mediating element. Binarity is one of my categories. I do not call it a conception; for it can be given in direct perception antecedent to thought. It penetrates every part of our inner world, as every part of the universe. The emotion of it becomes more like that of brute force in proportion to the development of this element [of binarity]. Among the inner shapes which binarity assumes are those of the doubts that are forced upon our minds. The very word "doubt," or "dubito," is the frequentative of "duhibeo"--i.e., duo habeo, and thus exhibits its binarity. If we did not struggle against doubt, we should not seek the truth. Binarity equally appears in negation, and in ordinary relative terms, even in similarity, and in a more real way in identity. The text †1 will show why individual existence is a markedly dualistic conception. Meantime, it is easy to see that only existing individuals can react against one another.
Peirce: CP 2.85 Cross-Ref:††
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.†1 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. Why was I born in the nineteenth century on Earth rather than on Mars a thousand years ago? Why did I today sneeze just five hours forty-three minutes and twenty-one seconds after a certain man in China whistled (supposing this did happen)? We know perhaps why a meteorite should fall to the earth, if it gets in the Earth's way; but why should the arrangements of nature be such that this particular meteorite was in the Earth's way? All these are facts which are as they are, simply because they happen to be so. We mostly neglect them; but there are cases, as in qualities of feeling, self-consciousness, etc., in which such isolated flashes come to the front. Originality, or Firstness, is another of my Categories. END
I offer this long section for a good reason. It is the only point in the entire CP trove of Peirce writings that mentions what I designate as binaries. His term is "binarity" Either way the are not far apart in definition. But here we have almost a case study in why Peirce's work remains unfinished.
I mean Peirce's work, not mine. The two are obviously unrelated because of differences in how each of us goes about creating categories and understanding things. To me what is interesting is the way he relates binarity to Secondness, His negative attitude towards it begs one to ask how he would characterize the play if binarity in culture, his and ours. His world was awash in Robber Barons and so is ours.
A major difference between Peirce's Secondness and my use of Ethics as the intervening "second" between Reality and Aesthetics is because it is the justice card in the deck we are playing and justice is something that will gradually become a non-issue in the context of continuity. You will infer that I am positing Heaven or a realm beyond this realm and I am. In Heaven there will be no need for justice, not because people will not conflict and disagree, but because this need not result in binarity. The other reason for my use of Ethics rather than Peirce's language is because Ethics is incapable of arriving at a conclusion that will result in effective change.
Love and its embrace of beauty and truth are the source of change that tells. that is real in the ultimate sense which is that of Reality.
Some Peirce scholar will deal with this passage at some point. Perhaps it has already been dealt with. I find it significant that it exists as the only reference in CP.
Peirce: CP 2.85 Cross-Ref:††
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.†1 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. Why was I born in the nineteenth century on Earth rather than on Mars a thousand years ago? Why did I today sneeze just five hours forty-three minutes and twenty-one seconds after a certain man in China whistled (supposing this did happen)? We know perhaps why a meteorite should fall to the earth, if it gets in the Earth's way; but why should the arrangements of nature be such that this particular meteorite was in the Earth's way? All these are facts which are as they are, simply because they happen to be so. We mostly neglect them; but there are cases, as in qualities of feeling, self-consciousness, etc., in which such isolated flashes come to the front. Originality, or Firstness, is another of my Categories. END
I offer this long section for a good reason. It is the only point in the entire CP trove of Peirce writings that mentions what I designate as binaries. His term is "binarity" Either way the are not far apart in definition. But here we have almost a case study in why Peirce's work remains unfinished.
I mean Peirce's work, not mine. The two are obviously unrelated because of differences in how each of us goes about creating categories and understanding things. To me what is interesting is the way he relates binarity to Secondness, His negative attitude towards it begs one to ask how he would characterize the play if binarity in culture, his and ours. His world was awash in Robber Barons and so is ours.
A major difference between Peirce's Secondness and my use of Ethics as the intervening "second" between Reality and Aesthetics is because it is the justice card in the deck we are playing and justice is something that will gradually become a non-issue in the context of continuity. You will infer that I am positing Heaven or a realm beyond this realm and I am. In Heaven there will be no need for justice, not because people will not conflict and disagree, but because this need not result in binarity. The other reason for my use of Ethics rather than Peirce's language is because Ethics is incapable of arriving at a conclusion that will result in effective change.
Love and its embrace of beauty and truth are the source of change that tells. that is real in the ultimate sense which is that of Reality.
Some Peirce scholar will deal with this passage at some point. Perhaps it has already been dealt with. I find it significant that it exists as the only reference in CP.
