Jon, list - Yes, we've been over a few things before, including your view that
Peirce rejected his earlier writings within his later writings. I disagree with
this view. I disagree that he spent the 'next two decades' essentially revising
and refining; his categories - which you seem to have problems with - are, in
my view, never rejected and never abandoned.
I have said that I can't explain his NA - and note that in it, he did NOT
reject his self-generated universe of 1.412. It is NOT obvious that Peirce
found a self-generated universe unsatisfactory and instead opted for a
non-immanent metaphysical agential creator. He doesn't say this; he doesn't
reject the self-generating forces nor the three categories.
Again, I've said that for both of us, our basic beliefs affect our readings of
Peirce. You are, openly and thoroughly, a theist. I am, openly and thoroughly,
an atheist. Therefore - you reject 1.412, while I accept it.
I totally disagree with you that 'god' does not require an explanation for one
MUST ask: 'where did God come from'? I consider that it DOES require an
explanation. The scholastics tried to get around this requirement with their
'well, something perfect doesn't require an origin; it is perfect because it is
perfect because....etc. I don't find that acceptable.
Therefore - the questions of the origin of the three categories - is equally
'ens necessarium'. Peirce himself defines them as fundamental and necessary.
And as for the original energy without mass - it is equally fundamental and
necessary.
Again - I do wish that you would see my point. BOTH views are beliefs and BOTH
are empirically unprovable. Therefore - which one you choose to accept -
depends on which belief you find most satisfactory. I find Peirce's 1.412 most
satisfactory - and that's where it ends.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
Edwina, List:
We have been over this ground already--Peirce wrote CP 1.412 in 1887-1888,
and spent the next two decades revising and refining his views about the origin
of the universe. This is evident in various writings, including the 1891-1893
"metaphysical series" in The Monist, the 1898 Cambridge Conferences lectures on
Reasoning and the Logic of Things, and (finally) the 1908 article "A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God." You have acknowledged previously that you
cannot explain why these later descriptions, especially the last one, include
"a non-immanent agential creator"; but it seems obvious that Peirce must have
ultimately found any other explanation unsatisfactory.
Even if we take CP 1.412 and your interpretation thereof in isolation, there
are still tough questions that cannot be avoided. Where did "the original
chaos ... in effect a state of mere indeterminacy" come from? Where did the
three categories come from? Where did matter/mind come from? In other words,
where did Being come from? By 1908, Peirce had settled upon the unavoidable
conclusion that the only Being whose origin does not require an explanation is
Ens necessarium--i.e., necessary Being, which has no origin at all, and which
he explicitly identified as God.
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 2:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Jon, list: The thing is, Peirce didn't base his analysis on the words of a
song. And self-generation does not 'render the origin of the entire universe
inexplicable'. He outlines and explains its self-generation in 1.412. He bases
his analysis on an assumption that the three categories, which are modes [not
agents] of organization of matter/mind.. are fundamental - and as such, can
initiate and organize the universe.
I personally find the notion of a non-immanent agential creator - to be
inexplicable and therefore the acceptance of such rests solely on a belief in
such an agent.
As I've said - both explanations are based on belief; I really don't think
either is open to empirical evidence. I happen to find the 1.412 explanation to
be, yes, logical - and I therefore accept 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 .
