Edwina, Jeff, List: This highlights one of my strong initial misgivings about Jeff's posts from last night. I do not see it as valid *at all* to substitute "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as *Ens necessarium*. As I have pointed out before, Peirce made it very clear in the manuscript drafts for "A Neglected Argument" that what he meant by "God" is *not* someone or something that is "immanent in Nature." I have also previously noted the distinction between "self-organization" (of that which already has Being), which is perfectly plausible and even evident in the world today, and "self-creation" or "self-generation" (something coming into Being on its own out of nothing), which I find completely implausible.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jeffrey- very nice outline. My view is that "the Mind-like > Reasonableness in Nature as *Ens necessarium* self-sufficient in its > originative capacity, "...for Peirce rejected the Cartesian separation of > Mind and Matter. Therefore, Mind, as a necessary component of Matter, > self-organizes that same Matter and its Laws - by means of the three > Categories which enable it to do just that. > > 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 .
