Edwina, List: ET: 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].
It should have been very clear from everything that I said in the previous thread on Peirce's Cosmology that I do not believe that Peirce *rejected* CP 1.412 and other earlier material on the subject; just that his thought (obviously) continued to *develop *in the years that followed. In particular, I suggested that CP 6.490 reflects his final (or near-final) views on the origin of the universe, and clarifies some aspects that he left vague in CP 1.412. My perception is that you cannot explain the later passage in a way that preserves your favored reading of the earlier one, so you throw up your hands and declare them to be incompatible. By contrast, I seek to harmonize them, mainly by interpreting the earlier passage *in light of* the later one. My guiding principle here is that we should assume that two texts by the same author are consistent with each other, unless there is absolutely no reasonable way to reconcile them. Since I showed that there *is *a reasonable way to reconcile CP 1.412 and CP 6.490, that resolution is to be preferred over one that rejects *either *of them. I must say, I am troubled by your admission that you "don't even attempt" to explain "A Neglected Argument." It is widely acknowledged to be one of Peirce's most significant writings, and unlike so many of them, it actually appeared in print during his lifetime. How can anyone who simply dismisses it claim to have a thorough understanding of Peirce's thought? ET: 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. "A Neglected Argument" never mentions the three categories, just the three Universes of Experience--and states plainly that *Ens necessarium* is, in Peirce's belief, Really creator of all three of them, and independent of at least two of them. Is there anything in Peirce's other writings where he associates *Ens necessarium* with the three categories, taken together? I do not "think that Peirce moved away from them"; I *was *under the impression that, late in his life, he shifted his terminology to calling them "Universes" instead, but Gary R.'s reminder of what Peirce wrote about the categories in "Pragmatism" (1907) was sufficient for me to abandon that hypothesis. Now I just want to know what the distinction is, and why he *only *talked about Universes in "A Neglected Argument." ET: I don't think that there is a resolution to this particular debate. Perhaps not in this forum, but I do appreciate the opportunity to have the discussion. You have forced me to sharpen my thinking and argumentation in ways that I would not have otherwise, so I sincerely thank you and hope that your experience has been similar. 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 3:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *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 > > [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>* > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
