Yes - this account of the 'logos' has long been with us, and is, as you say, extremely broad in meaning and thus, open to endless debate.

I, unfortunately [why, why did my father select such a name?] don't have a namesake and so can't rely on any connection with a past erudite mind...


I am equally a realist but I don't believe that the logos, understood in this sense, as an a priori Mind, 'exists' i.e., has any a priori nature. Instead, I consider that Mind and Matter emerged, in that 'flash', together and both effect and affect the other in a constantly evolving and increasingly complex manner.

Matter could not last beyond the immediacy of a second without the stabilizing habits of Mind. And Mind could not function except within the existentiality of Matter. [See 1.412 and elsewhere for the relation between Matter and Mind].

What's the point of both? I think it has something to do with energy. Energy would dissipate to its lowest level, i.e., to chaos, without its being 'trapped' within morphologies of existential particular Instances - i.e., as Signs. To become entrapped requires both 'being particular in a separate cell wall so to speak' [an act of Secondness] but also within the stabilizing continuity of habits [Thirdness] - and yet, able to adapt [Firstness]. So- the three categories are primal modes. And - the triad of organization [O-R-I] is equally primal for it enables these three categories to function and relate. And enables that particular instance, eg, an atom, to maintain continuity of TYPE [as a hydrogen atom] and yet interact with other atoms, eg, of another TYPE [oxygen] and so form a more complex instantiation of water.

So, rather than 'the truth'..that is the goal of unrestricted inquiry - I see the agenda as merely the maintenance of energy, as Matter and Mind, within the universe. I'm afraid I don't see anything as noble, within the universe, as an agenda of Truth. Rather - Truth is an agenda specific to cognitive beings, to our human species. Here it is indeed a noble endeavour - but we are unfortunately, by the addition of 'imagination', capable of both truth and complete and total self-delusion. And we have difficulty, often, of differentiating the two.

Edwina


----- Original Message ----- From: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
To: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


On 10/15/2016 9:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Since I am rejecting a metaphysical origin [God] as the origin
of the universe, I stick with the Big Bang for now.

I agree with Heraclitus and my namesake, John the Evangelist:

Heraclitus wrote about the logos — translated variously as word,
speech, or reason: "all things (panta) come into being according to
this logos." The Greek concept of logos, which can also be translated
account, reckoning, or even computation is broad enough to encompass
all the abstractions of mathematics, metaphysics, and the sciences.

A few centuries after Heraclitus, John the Evangelist wrote "In the
beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and God was the
logos. It was in the beginning with God. All things (panta) came into
being through it, and without it nothing that has come to be came into
being" (1,1-3).  John and Heraclitus used the same words logos, panta,
and gignomai (come to be).  What they meant by those words, however,
has been a matter of debate for millennia.

As a realist, I believe that the logos exists.  To relate it to modern
science and to Peirce, I believe that the logos is the truth that is
the goal of unrestricted inquiry by unlimited generations of "scientific
intelligence" by which Peirce meant any intelligence that is capable of
learning from experience.

John



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to