Dear list:
Here’re some breadcrumbs for Firstness Secondness Thirdness: Peirce's Neglected Argument, Bowman L. Clarke The breadcrumbs for First Second Third as categories, which relate to the Universes are in A Guess at the Riddle. But really, your approach is flawed. You have to learn to become "suspicious of the written word, which is dead and cannot answer back when questioned"...Rather, you ought to seek "instead living words, which are planted and grow in living minds." Because you know...symbols grow. Hth, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
