Edwina, List: ET: That is, whether the universe is self-generated/created as well as self-organized, or, requires an non-immanent agential creator. Both are logical ...
I hardly think that Peirce would sanction calling a proposition "logical" that renders the origin of the entire universe *inexplicable*. Self-generation/creation does not even qualify as an admissible hypothesis according to his criteria, since it does not *explain *anything. Julie Andrews sang it well--"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." Regards, Jon On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, list: > > Exactly. You wrote: > "For those who are unwilling to accept *Ens Necessarium* as anything but > "Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" (which appears to be Edwina's > position, although I'm not as certain as to where Jeff stands on this), > then there is no God, no need for God, and exactly *nothing '*preceeds' > the odd self-creation of the Universe, presumably at the moment of the most > singular and peculiar of singularities, the putative Big Bang. So, I don't > expect there will be anything approaching a rapprochement in these > fundamentally opposed positions any time soon." > > That was also my point. The two paradigms are not, either one of them, > empirically, provable. That is, whether the universe is > self-generated/created as well as self-organized, or, requires an > non-immanent agential creator. Both are logical, but, both rely totally on > belief. So, there can't be any 'rapprochement'. You either believe in one > or the other. And therefore, there's not much use arguing about them! > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:03 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories > > Jon S, Edwina, Jeff D, List, > > Jon wrote: 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. > > I agree, Jon, and have myself over the years argued that ""Mind-like > Reasonableness in Nature" is a valid concept (along with > "self-organization") only *after *the creation of a cosmos, or, as you > put it, after there is Being. I too find the notion of "self-generation" > and "self-creation" completely implausible and inexplicable. > > But didn't we just recently have this discussion (remember Platonism vs > Aristotelianism?) in contemplating, for prime example, the blackboard > analogy (to which Jon added the interesting 'dimension' of a whiteboard)? > For those who are unwilling to accept *Ens Necessarium* as anything but > "Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" (which appears to be Edwina's > position, although I'm not as certain as to where Jeff stands on this), > then there is no God, no need for God, and exactly *nothing '*preceeds' > the odd self-creation of the Universe, presumably at the moment of the most > singular and peculiar of singularities, the putative Big Bang. So, I don't > expect there will be anything approaching a rapprochement in these > fundamentally opposed positions any time soon. > > Meanwhile, and while I think , Jeff, that you may be tending to > over-emphasize the importance of developments in the existential graphs in > consideration of the Categories/Universes problematic in the N.A. (I don't > recall a single mention of EGs in that piece), your most recent post does > offer some intriguing hints as to how we might begin to rethink aspects of > the relation between the Categories and the Universes, or at least that is > my first impression. But how, say, the Gamma graphs might figure in all > this, I have no idea whatsover. > > > Jeff concluded: So, in "The Neglected Argument", Peirce may very well be > examining--on an observational basis--the different ways that we might > think about the phenomenological account of the universes and categories in > common experience for the sake of refining his explanations of how the > logical conceptions of the universes of discourse and categories should be > applied to those abductive inferences that give rise to our > most global hypotheses. > > > For me at least there have always been uncanny, unresolved tensions > between the phenomenological, the logical, and the metaphysical in The > Neglected Argument. The attempt to unravel them seems to me of the greatest > potential value. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 .
