Jon, list:

I think you will have to admit that neither you nor I know for sure which of 
the two arguments for the emergence of the universe are 'really held' by 
Peirce.  There is, A,  the self-organized emergence and evolution of Mind and 
Matter within the axioms of the three categories - and this reference to the 
embodiment and evolution of Mind with Matter is found all through Peirce's 
writings. And, there is, B, the introduction of an a priori agency,  God, in a 
later text- without any real examination of the relation of Mind and Matter in 
this god-created universe.

Your reliance on "IF it's written at a later date, THEN, this means Peirce 
believed in its axioms even more' - is merely your view of linear writing. 
Then, there is your own open declaration of theism - and my equally open 
declaration of atheism. These have to affect each of us.

This leads me to conclude that - as I said, neither you nor I know which of the 
two arguments is 'really held' by Peirce. I think we'll have to leave it at 
that.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: tabor...@primus.ca ; Peirce-L 
  Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 2:42 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


  Edwina, List:


    ET:  What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the 
Universe.


  Peirce wrote "A Guess at the Riddle" in 1887-1888 and "A Neglected Argument" 
in 1908.  The latter, including its various drafts, states explicitly that in 
Peirce's belief, God is Really creator of all three Universes of Experience and 
everything in them, without exception.  This means that either (a) he changed 
his mind at some point during the intervening twenty years, or (b) he saw no 
incompatibility between the two positions.  His cosmological remarks in CP 
6.490, written only a little later in 1908 than the article itself, suggest 
strongly that (b) is the case.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

    Gary R - you wrote:

    "I am not an atheist because, for one thing, I refuse to 'reduce' the 
origins of this cosmos to an improbably singularity (a Big Bang--and, as you 
probably know, there is not one version of this theory, but several, and 
competing theories as well, although the current scientific dogma won't allow 
for that). 


    Nor do I see self-organization (a sound enough principle) and self-creation 
(whatever that may mean) as the only principles of semiosis, life and 
evolution."

    I certainly won't critique or comment on your rejection of atheism as 
that's hardly my right, but I'd like to comment on the 'singularity of origin 
of our universe' [Big Bang] and self-organization.

    With regard to the singular explosive origin, there certainly are numerous 
theories, including for or against the Big Bang. Since I am rejecting a 
metaphysical origin [God] as the origin of the universe, I stick with the Big 
Bang for now. I refer to Peirce's 'A Guess at the Riddle'...

    "The original chaos, therefore, where there was no regularity, was in 
effect a state of mere indeterminacy in which nothing existed or really 
happened. 
    Our conceptions of the first stages of development, before time yet 
existed, must be as vague and figurative as the expressions of the first 
chapter of Genesis. Out of the womb of indeterminacy we must say that there 
would have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a 
flash. Then by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash. 
Though time would not yet have been, this second flash  was in some sense after 
the first, because resulting from it. Then there would have come other 
successions ever more and more closely connected, the habits and the tendency 
to take them ever strengthening themselves, until the events would have been 
bound together into something like a continuous flow.....' 1.412

    What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the Universe. 
There is no metaphysical Agent [God- which requires an a priori agency, 
something which the Scholastics dealt with by not dealing with it except within 
belief] - but - the basic principles of organization of the three categories 
ARE there. And that's all three - pure spontaneity, discrete instantiations, 
and regularity or habit-taking. These are all aspects of Mind - and matter, as 
Peirce constantly wrote, is 'effete Mind'. So, Mind seems to be primal...and 
even, self-organized.

    As Peirce outlined in his examples of crystals as instantiations of Mind, 
or the decapitated frog which, lacking a brain, 'almost reasons. The habit that 
is in his cerebellum serves as a major premiss. The excitation of a drop of 
acid is his minor premiss. And his conclusion is the act of wiping it away. All 
that is of any value in the operation of ratiocination is there, except only 
one thing. What he lacks is the power of prepatory meditation" 6.286.  

    Just so- the above triad is a semiosic action - and equally applicable to a 
crystal, which also lacks the power of prepatory meditation but does have the 
entire semiosic act/syllogism within it.

    Edwina


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



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