Jon- I'm not going to get into 'practical effects' of the two actions....
Rejection of a theory is an active, conscious, analytic choice. 'No comment' is
none of these.
As for an assumption that 'something written later is a more accurate
representation' - that's subjective and I won't get into that. After all, one
could write something tomorrow that rejected the argument just written today!
You didn't give up the 'universe' theory that easily; you wrote on it for
several weeks, and if the term 'adamant' bothers you..well...
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
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
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Clark Goble ; Peirce-L
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
To: Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
