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