Edwina, List: ET: Jon- surely you know the difference between the active [a rejection of a theory] and the passive [no comment].
In this case, what *practical *effects are different between "rejection" and "no comment," besides the words that we use for them? ET: And I didn't differentiate the two into 'early' and 'late, as you do, with you also suggesting that the 'late' is 'a more accurate representation of Peirce's views. Which would be a more accurate representation of *your *views--what you wrote 20 years ago, or what you wrote this morning? ET: I don't see that the NA is a development nor a 'final or near-final view; nor do I see that it clarifies or that 1.412 is vague. Peirce wrote CP 1.412 in 1887-1888, and "A Neglected Argument" in 1908. So far, I have not found any discussion of cosmology/comogony in his writings from the five years subsequent to the latter and prior to his death. Unless and until something else turns up from that time frame, I think that there is considerable warrant for characterizing CP 6.490 as his final or near-final view. ET: Yes, you eventually abandoned the hypothesis. If I was really so "adamant" about it, would I have given it up so quickly and easily? One counterexample was all it took. I brought it up a lot lately because I was seeking either confirmation or disconfirmation from the List community, and I ultimately (and happily) received the latter. With that question resolved, I am now seeking input from the List community on whether and how we should distinguish Universes vs. Categories, since Peirce refers to the former and not the latter in certain late writings--including, of course, "A Neglected Argument." Regards, Jon On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) Jon- surely you know the difference between the active [a rejection of > a theory] and the passive [no comment]. And I didn't differentiate the two > into 'early' and 'late, as you do, with you also suggesting that the 'late' > is 'a more accurate representation of Peirce's views. > > You wrote: " 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." > > I don't see that the NA is a *development* nor a '*final or near-final* > view; nor do I see that it *clarifies* or that 1.412 is vague. > > 2) As for my view that you were 'adamantly' in favour of rejecting the > category theory, which you described as 'early Peirce' in favour of the > later 'three universes - that is certainly my view - perhaps because of > the number of posts you made on this topic over several weeks. Yes, you > eventually abandoned the hypothesis. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Clark Goble <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 2:59 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories > > Edwina, List: > > ET: No- you aren't accurate but I don't see that I should have to defend > myself; if you have inaccurate views of my views - then, I am hardly going > to fight you about your views of me! > > > My apologies, I did not intend to misrepresent you; but how is having "no > comment" on "A Neglected Argument" any different (in the pragmaticist > sense) from rejecting it? You just reiterated that you "don't find that it > fits in with the emergence-evolution arguments found elsewhere in Peirce"; > how is this at odds with my statement that you find it incompatible with > his earlier cosmological/cosmogonic writings, which you favor? > > ET: BUT - you adamantly told us that Peirce effectively abandoned his use > of the Categories, which you defined as 'early' and instead, moved on to > consider the Three Universes. > > > I believe that a fair review of the List archives would show that I was > never "adamant" about this, but rather consistently characterized it as > merely an "impression," or at most a "hypothesis"; and in any case, I > immediately changed my mind and disavowed it when Gary R. reminded me that > Peirce discussed the Categories at some length in at least one of his 1907 > drafts on "Pragmatism." In other words, I have come to agree with you > "that Peirce never abandoned the Categories"; however, I still see the > discussion of "Universes" rather than "Categories" in both "A Neglected > Argument" and the December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby as calling for > an explanation. If they are not two subtly different expressions of the > same thing, perhaps in the sense that the three Universes are the > phaneroscopic and/or metaphysical manifestations of the three (logical?) > Categories, then what exactly is the distinction between the two terms? > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, list >> No- you aren't accurate but I don't see that I should have to defend >> myself; if you have inaccurate views of my views - then, I am hardly going >> to fight you about your views of me! >> >> BUT - you adamantly told us that Peirce effectively abandoned his use of >> the Categories, which you defined as 'early' and instead, moved on to >> consider the Three Universes. That was my argument with you - that you >> rejected his Categories as 'early Peirce' while the 'mature Peirce' >> discusssed only the Three Universes. I maintained that Peirce never >> abandoned the Categories and indeed, don't find them comparable in any way >> with the Three Universes. >> >> As far as the emergence of the universe, I tend to support his 1.412 >> outline, which is a physico-chemical-biological outline, along with his >> outline of evolution and adaptation [tychasm, agapasm] - none of which make >> any reference to a non-immanent a priori Creator/God - as outlined in the >> NA. I didn't find your attempt to correlate 1.412 with the NA a convincing >> argument. >> >> Therefore - I said, and repeat, that I have *no comment* on the NA, >> since I don't find that it fits in with the emergence-evolution arguments >> found elsewhere in Peirce. >> >> As for Peirce's Platonism -[ which is not the same as neo-Platonism], I >> find Peirce a thorough Aristotelian - and the debate, for example, by >> Aristotle vs Platonism [in many areas, including in physics, metaphysics, >> politics] ...seems to find support in Peirce's views on, for example, >> matter and mind; causality; ....so, I don't find arguments defining him as >> 'Platonist' very convincing. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> *To:* Clark Goble <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 1:47 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories >> >> Clark, List: >> >> ET: I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big >> contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more >> neoplatonic work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him >> moving away from the earlier positions. >> >> >> This actually sounds more like my position than Edwina's. I have argued >> that Peirce's later cosmological/cosmogonic writings do not *contradict *his >> earlier ones; rather, they *clarify *some details that he had previously >> left vague. By contrast, Edwina seems to *reject *the later >> writings--especially "A Neglected Argument," which she admits she cannot >> explain and does not even attempt to explain--as incompatible with the >> earlier ones, which she favors. She also seems to bristle at *any >> *suggestion >> that Peirce was a (neo-)Platonist in *any *sense whatsoever. Of course, >> these are my impressions of her positions, and I hope that they are >> accurate; if not, I would welcome her correction/clarification. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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]. >>> >>> I confess I don’t understand this disagreement, especially if it is >>> coming in with our priors regarding theology. It seems to me the big bang >>> is largely orthogonal to such questions. For one, most physics doesn’t see >>> the big bang as the beginning of everything. The inflationary models at >>> this point are quite old and widely accepted. String theory has its branes >>> which float in higher dimensional space. Loop quantum gravity has bubble >>> universes more akin to the original inflationary models. And some theorists >>> reject them all and say all we have empirical evidence for is this universe. >>> >>> i.e. it would seem both options are pretty open to atheists and theists >>> of various stripes >>> >>> 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 tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big >>> contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more >>> neoplatonic work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him >>> moving away from the earlier positions. >>> >>> But I suspect part of this is how to interpret those earlier passages in >>> 1.412. I’m largely convinced by Parker here. (Regarding Peirce anyway - I’m >>> not sure I buy the ontology itself) >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
