Jon - the difference between us is not merely theism/atheism - where the former 
accepts an a priori agency - but, where the latter [might] include not an a 
priori agency but instead, argues for self-organization.

So- I argue that indeed, everything could come from nothing, via the actions of 
self-organization, as outlined by Peirce in the earlier sections... 1.412.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L 
  Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:16 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


  Edwina, List:


    ET:  And that can be acceptable even if one defines these atemporal 
aspatial Platonic world[s] as nothing for in a very real sense, they WERE 
'nothing' - being aspatial and atemporal.


  Only if you presuppose that only that which is spatial and temporal can be 
"something."  Peirce does not impose that requirement; in his terminology, the 
Platonic worlds are real, even though they do not exist.


    ET:  I don't see why continuity and generality require a 'super-order and 
super-habit'.


  According to Peirce in CP 6.490, it is because otherwise, "the three 
universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter 
nothingness"; that is, "A state in which there should be absolutely no 
super-order whatsoever."  But in such a state, absolutely nothing is absolutely 
necessary; in fact, there cannot be any Being whatsoever, since "all Being 
involves some kind of super-order ... Any such super-order would be a 
super-habit. Any general state of things whatsoever would be a super-order and 
a super-habit."


    ET:  I think this is a basic disagreement among those of us who are theists 
vs non-theists!


  Probably so.  It seems to come down to whether one finds it plausible that 
everything could have come from nothing.


  Regards,



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


  On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

    Gary R, list
    That's a nice outline. 

    With reference to the Platonic world[s] ...plural...of which only ONE has 
been existential - I'm OK with that. And that can be acceptable even if one 
defines these atemporal aspatial Platonic world[s]  as nothing for in a very 
real sense, they WERE 'nothing' - being aspatial and atemporal.

    With regard to Jon's point: Continuity is generality, and generality of any 
kind is impossible in the absence of super-order and super-habit; i.e., the 
Reality of God. [see ** below]...

    I don't see this; I don't see why continuity and generality require a 
'super-order and super-habit'. I think they merely require self-organization of 
order and habit and Peirce outlines this in 1.410. That is, order and habit 
emerge WITHIN the particularization of matter. They don't pre-exist. I think 
this is a basic disagreement among those of us who are theists vs non-theists!

    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