Gary R, Jon, list:
The problem is, Gary, that you and Jon are both theists and both of you reject
the 'Big Bang'. I am an atheist and support the 'Big Bang'. Therefore, both
sides in this debate select sections from Peirce to which we feel compatible.
Yet - as I keep saying, both views are empirically outside of any possibility
of proof or TRUTH. You either believe in one OR the other [or some other
theory].
You try to substantiate that Peirce followed the same view as yours by defining
his 'earlier work' as something that he moved away from and rejected. I don't
see any evidence of this. I admit that I can't explain the NA - and I don't
even attempt to do so - but - I don't find any evidence of Peirce rejecting the
1.412 argument - and other arguments about the self-organization and evolution
of the universe [tychasm, agapasm].
I consider that his 'ens necessarium' are the three categories. Jon seems to
think that Peirce moved away from them. I don't see this.
Then, both your and Jon's view of the primal role of Thirdness [that continuum]
is something that I remain very sceptical of - for i consider that all three
categories are 'primal'.
So- we have lots of disagreements. BUT - on the issue of the origin of the
universe, as I keep saying, the selection of one OR the other view is a matter
of BELIEF. Not proof. And to declare that Peirce took the theist view because
he wrote it later....is not, to me, a strong argument. I don't think it is a
matter of logic or fact that 'later writings are more truthful theories'. So -
as I also keep saying, I don't think that there is a resolution to this
particular debate. I certainly have no intention of suggesting that you and Jon
stop believing in God and rejecting the BigBang!!!
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
Edwina, Jon S, Jeff D, List,
Edwina wrote: "I do NOT find the outline of a metaphysical agent/creator to
be explicable in any way. It rests on non-scientific means; i.e., one believes
because of authority or tenacity. Of course this belief, like its opposite,
is not empirically provable, but it is, to me, not even logically explicable."
First, can we agree that the idea of a creator is indeed Peirce's, he who
outlined the scientific method of settling doubt as superior to that of
authority or tenacity? How foolish of Peirce not to have seen his own blatent
illogic. How do you explain this logical failure?
Then, considering Peirce's 1898 cosmological musings (which introduce the
ur-continuum and thus 3ns which *is* in some way associated with a creator as
both Jon and I have pointed out in consideration of one of the three
Universes), unlike his comments in "A Guess at the Riddle" which you always
point to, this seems to me to be a deepening and development of those earlier
views where 1ns seemed to arise out of some chaos perhaps not yet thought of by
him as a continuum (his understanding of continua is developing at the same
time). I find this, consequently, to be a more compelling early cosmic theory
than that of "A Guess at the Riddle."
(I've just read Jon's response which makes a similar point in a somewhat
different way; but I've decided to send this as well.)
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Gary R, Jon, Jeffrey, list etc...
Self-generation, self-origination of the universe within the fundamental
categories of organization of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness - as outlined in
1.412, is to me, NOT inexplicable but entirely plausible and logical. [It IS a
Big Bang outline]. The Universe then proceeds to evolve, as a complex and
networked merger of Mind and Matter - again, outlined in Peirce's various
analyses of evolution [tychasm, agapasm]..To me, it is a valid explanation.
To require a metaphysical, agent/creator of this universe is to me -
utterly inexplicable and illogical. After all it does not explain the origin of
this metaphysical agent/creator!!!.
As I keep saying, there are these two competing theories, both of which
quite frankly, are outside of any empirical proof. Therefore, one believes -
and I mean the word - believes - in one and not the other.
I do NOT find the outline of a metaphysical agent/creator to be explicable
in any way. It rests on non-scientific means; i.e., one believes because of
authority or tenacity. Of course this belief, like its opposite, is not
empirically provable, but it is, to me, not even logically
explicable...because, for all the ancient reasons - one then has to ask: And
what was the origin of this metaphysical agent/creator. The usual Scholastic
answer is: There Is No Origin. Which means you are back to the circle: you
believe or don't believe.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
Jon, Edwina, List,
Two things have been clarified for me from this discussion. First, that
as Jon noted, Peirce would unquestionably not "sanction calling a proposition
"logical" that renders the origin of the entire universe inexplicable."
The self-generation or self-creation of the Universe is such an illogical
proposition. What Peirce offers in his early cosmological musings, as difficult
as they certainly are to analyze and interpret, increasingly make better
sense--at least for me--of the origins of the Universe than the competing
theory, the Big Bang, for which Great Singularity there has never been a
persuasive, or pretty much any, reason given.
So, as I'm now seeing it, this great scientist, philosopher, and logician
(semiotician), i.e., Peirce, arrives at his early cosmology (which necessitates
God) because for him this is the only reasonable solution to the ancient
question of why there is anything rather than nothing and why it takes the (for
Peirce) trichotomic form which it does. That he employs the fruits of his
intellectual labors over a lifetime, including his notion of Three Universes,
in an attempt at a reasonable answer to this question is much less the action
of a believer (an certainly not a theologian, for he famously rather despised
theology), than as a scientist.
Second, from his own words it is clear that Peirce would never
"substitute "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as Ens
necessarium."
Jon has argued this repeatedly and so well that I have nothing to add to
his argumentation.
But this brings me back to the first point, namely, that for Peirce a
principal, perhaps the principal purpose of science and reason is exactly to
make the world explicable. As Terry Eagleton writes in Reason, Faith, and
Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate in words which could be Peirce's:
We may. . . inquire what we are to make of the fact that even before we
have begun to reason properly, that the world is in principle reasonable in the
first place (129).
In additional, Eagleton comments, following Aquinas' dictum that "all
virtues have their source in love":
Love is the ultimate form of soberly disenchanted realism, which is why
it is the twin of truth (122),
But that would get us into a discussion of Peirce's non-traditional view
of Christianity, which is, even if deeply related, a distinctly different topic
than the Reality of God in the N.A.
Best,
Gary R
: Love is the ultimate form of soberly
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
To: Peirce-L
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" isnot 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
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
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 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
