Edwina, List: As a matter of fact, I have read that particular article, since it came up in the thread on "Peirce's Theory of Thinking." Chiasson's thesis is that Peirce was really writing about "the *attitude* and *method* from which all decisions of importance to the conduct of a life should begin." I find this implausible for the same reason as your previous suggestion that he was really offering "a metaphoric argument for the three modes of argumentation"--if that were the case, why is it not reflected in the title? Surely the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that Peirce's intention was anything other than describing a neglected argument for the reality of God.
In any event, Chiasson's article does not discuss the three Universes of Experience *at all*, so I am still looking for a good reason to think that they correspond to retroduction/induction/deduction rather than Firstness/Secondness/Thirdness. Obviously Peirce's article *does *discuss those three types of inference, but it does so quite explicitly. The interesting thing is that it *never* brings up the categories--which is why it makes a lot of sense to recognize them as the Universes. Regards, Jon On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list > > You wrote: > Searching the List archives and the Internet in general has (so far) > turned up no rationale for instead taking them to represent the three types > of inference. > > By 'three types of inference' - I am guessing that you mean the three > types of argumentation. That's how I read the NA - and as I said - it's > been analysed in this way before. Phyllis Chiasson, a respected Peirce > scholar, certainly makes such an analysis. > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/chiasson/revisit.htm > > I suggest you google: 'Peirce neglected argument and abduction' - and > you'll come up with further discussion. So, it's strange that you haven't > come across this argument before. > > And I don't consider the three universes as equivalent to the three > categories. I don't see how one can analyze the ten classes of signs > without the use of the three categories - and the three universes would be > irrelevant in that analysis of the semiosic process. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> ; [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:58 PM > *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology > > Edwina, List: > > ET: I think that one has to first define 'God'. If the term means 'pure > mind' then, this fits in with Peirce's analysis ... > > > The handful of quotes that I included in my post to start this thread give > us a pretty good idea of how Peirce defined God, at least with respect to > his cosmology, which is (after all) what we are discussing. "Pure mind" is > only one aspect, and God is certainly not *identical* to mind--according > to Peirce, God is also *Ens necessarium*; Creator of all three Universes > of Experience and everything in them, without exception; not immanent in > them or in nature, but independent of them, or at least two of them; > omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely benign. > > ET: ... for he considers that Mind is 'immanent in nature'. > > > Except that he never actually says this, using these particular words. I > guess it depends on how we define "immanent" and "nature." > > ET: This means that the results of the process of abduction, an act of > immediate Firstness. can be moved into the present instantation of > inductional experience..and then, backed up by analysis over time, or, > deduction. > > > Peirce, of course, put these in a different order--abduction, then > deduction, then induction. The hypothesis must be explicated in order to > determine whether and how it can be evaluated. > > ET: Panpsychism seems to have a different meaning ... > > > Terms like pantheism, panentheism, and panpsychism seem to be rather broad > and vague, with considerable overlap. Given the scope of Peirce's > writings, I am now inclined to avoid attaching any such labels to his > thought, except the ones that he himself used--such as synechism. > > ET: There is no way, I feel, that the Categories can be removed from > being an integral component of Peircean semiosis. > > > I am not suggesting that the categories be *removed*, just that Peirce > changed his own terminology toward the end of his life. In fact, there > seems to be broad consensus among Peirce scholars that the three Universes > of Experience *do *correspond to the three categories. After all, what > viable alternatives are there? Searching the List archives and the > Internet in general has (so far) turned up no rationale for instead taking > them to represent the three types of inference. Would you mind sharing > your own reasons for reading "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" > as "a metaphoric argument for the three modes of argumentation"? > > Thanks, > > Jon > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think that one has to first define 'God'. If the term means 'pure mind' >> then, this fits in with Peirce's analysis - for he considers that Mind is >> 'immanent in nature'. Of course, one then has to define 'Mind' - and I >> disagree that it is only Thirdness, but consider that it, as a powerful >> process, contains the actions of Firstness and Secondness as well - This >> means that the results of the process of abduction, an act of immediate >> Firstness. can be moved into the present instantation of inductional >> experience..and then, backed up by analysis over time, or, deduction. >> >> Panpsychism seems to have a different meaning, ie, "the doctrine or >> belief that everything material, however small, has an element of >> individual consciousness.". Since Peirce rejected consciousness as a >> necessary attribute of Mind and wasn't keen on psychology - then, this >> definition doesn't seem to work. However, if you remove 'individual >> consciousness' from the definition and define it instead as a 'process of >> Mind or Reason'...then..this would, I think, fit into the Peircean analysis. >> >> And I don't consider the Universes as equivalent to the Categories and >> thus, do not, in my view, 'supplant' the Categories. There is no way, I >> feel, that the Categories can be removed from being an integral component >> of Peircean semiosis. The Categories, in my reading of Peirce, are >> certainly not external labels which we use to categorize experience. I read >> them as integral to reality and existence. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> *To:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:22 PM >> *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology >> >> Helmut, List: >> >> My understanding of "pantheism" is that it entails that God is "immanent >> in nature," so Peirce's explicit denial of this in three different drafts >> of "A Neglected Argument" is pretty decisive evidence against deeming him a >> pantheist. It seems to me that Edwina's adjustment--stating that Mind >> (rather than God) is immanent in nature--is more properly classified as pan >> *psychism*, and I do not believe that it is terribly controversial to >> apply that particular label to Peirce. At least some of the other >> formulations that you offered sound to me more like *panentheism* than >> pantheism, but my impression is that there are a lot of different >> varieties, and I am not personally familiar with the nuances. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> List, >>> Regarding the question, whether Peirce was a pantheist or not, I was >>> thinking about the meaning of "immanent". If it means that something is >>> contained (nonlocally in this case), like as an epiphenomenon or a trait of >>> something, then something "immanent" implies not being the creator of this >>> thing. But if God is the creator, and still is present everywhere and >>> everywhen, i.e. nonlocally and nontemporally, might this still be >>> pantheism, though without immanence? In this case the universe does not >>> contain God, but the other way round. And the immanence is also the other >>> way: God is not immanent in the universe (or the three of them), but the >>> universe is immanent in God? No, maybe one cannot say so, if one believes >>> in creation as a process, because then in the beginning there must have >>> been a God without a universe. But on the other hand, this might be a too >>> anthropocentric concept of God and of creation: Maybe it is not a linear >>> process, like a carpenter making a chair? >>> About possibilities: Are they creative or privative? Is a possibility an >>> invention, or something that remains when a lot of other items in question >>> have been identified as, or turned out to be, impossibilities? With God as >>> firstness, it should be the first (creative possibility) , I guess. But >>> this might be a hen-and-egg-question, which suggests that there was a >>> beginning: Either a nothing, or an everything. But maybe there was no >>> beginning (like eg. buddhists claim). >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >> ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
