I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of
'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this 'ur-continuity'.
Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang Thirdness.
But I am concerned about the focus of this thread. It seems to me that we are
moving into a discussion based around our own firmly-held personal beliefs
about god, the world, creation etc, and are using Peirce, searching for and
'interpreting' his writings, to support our own personal beliefs.
I don't see the point of such a discussion.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Soren, Jon, List.
Soren wrote:
But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the
tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt argues so
Well in Natural propositions and feeling is present in all matter (Hylozoism)
and all three categories arise as universes from pure Zero. . .
Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" following the
creation of this Universe (that is, after the Big Bang, so to loosely speak) is
*not* the same as the 3ns which is the ur-continuity represented by the black
board example in the last of the 1898 lectures. It seems to me that much hinges
on whether or not one sees our Universe as presupposing this ur-continuity
(nothing in particular but everything in general, with yet a tendency toward
habit-taking because of this ur-continuity, otherwise termed the zero of pure
potential, which is, for Peirce, certainly not "nothing at all").
It has further been noted that Peirce suggests that the Creator is, or in
some way participates, in this ur-continuity. Once *this* Universe is "in
effect," then, yes, all that you and Stjernfelt argue may follow (although, I
remain, as was Peirce, I firmly believe, a theist and not a panentheist, so I
tend to reject that part of your argumentation, at least in consideration of
the early cosmos).
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 Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:
Jon, List
But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or
the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt argues so
Well in Natural propositions and feeling is present in all matter (Hylozoism)
and all three categories arise as universes from pure Zero, why should its
self-organization not match Eckhart’s idea of Jesus consciousness born in every
man, if “the father” is pure Zero and the holy spirit or ghost is thirdness
as self-organization, meaning that human consciousness as the aware man is the
living conscious realization in the flesh of the origin of our being? Peirce’s
naturalization encompassed pure Zero as the transcendental a part of nature and
us. It fits a form of Gnostic panentheism, is my abduction. It fits with his
mystical experience. It is esoterical pure mysticism encompassing rationality
and science without a conscious personal creator. The basic postulate is that
we can have access to the Godhead through a developed consciousness. This is
basically what Bhakti Vedanta and much of Buddhism – and in my view Meister
Eckhart in Christianity – say, and why he was excommunicated from the Catholic
church, because he was – as many scholars has pointed out – too close to Adi
Shankara’s thinking. It is pretty much Suzuki’s point of view too
http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/d-t-suzuki-mysticism-christian-and-buddhist.pdf
and he was hired by Paul Carus the editor of the Monist. Of cause we here have
Emerson and the trandscendentalist’s view too.
Best
Søren
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 2. november 2016 22:43
To: John F Sowa
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
John, List:
The question still arises of what to make of the statement in John's Gospel
that "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." Neither nature nor its laws
can be substituted for Logos in this case.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
On 11/2/2016 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
His favorite Gospel was that of John, but did he ever quote its
first chapter? "In the beginning was the Word [logos] ...
Since his father taught him Greek at a very early age, I'm sure
that New Testament Greek was one of the first texts he studied.
Given his interest in logic, Peirce may have preferred this gospel
because of its use of the word 'logos'.
Around 400 BC, Heraclitus (Fragment 1) wrote
all things come to be according to this logos
In the first century AD, John wrote
In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God.
And God was the Logos. It was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through it, and without it nothing
came to be that has come to be.
They both used 'panta' (all things) and 'gignomai' (come to be).
Heraclitus did not use the word 'Theos' (God), but John equated
Theos with Logos. Some scholars claim that John was influenced
by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote many volumes (in Greek) to
reconcile the Torah with Greek philosophy.
Other scholars commented on the similarity between Logos as
Heraclitus used it, Dao (or Tao) as Lao Zi used it, and Dharma
as Gautama Buddha used it. Perhaps that was not a coincidence,
because they were approximate contemporaries, and they lived
near the trade routes (Silk Road) from China to Asia Minor.
In his _Ethica_, Spinoza used the words 'God' (Deus) and 'nature'
(Natura) almost interchangeably. When asked whether he believed
in God, Einstein replied, "I believe in the God of Spinoza".
The equation of God with the laws of nature by Spinoza and Einstein
should be compared to Logos, Dao, and Dharma. The Latin 'natura'
is the Scholastic translation of the Greek 'physis'. The English
word 'physics' is an 18th century synonym for 'natural philosophy'.
Peirce was also familiar with Aristotle's use of 'logos'. The
first paragraph of _De Interpretatione_ (in Greek and in various
Scholastic commentaries) was likely to be another influence:
First we must determine what are noun (onoma) and verb (rhêma); and
after that, what are negation (apophasis), assertion (kataphasis),
proposition (apophansis), and sentence (logos). Those in speech (phonê)
are symbols (symbola) of affections (pathêmata) in the psyche, and
those written (graphomena) are symbols of those in speech. As letters
(grammata), so are speech sounds not the same for everyone. But they
are signs (sêmeia) primarily of the affections in the psyche, which
are the same for everyone, and so are the objects (pragmata) of which
they are likenesses (homoiômata). On these matters we speak in the
treatise on the psyche, for it is a different subject. (16a1)
This is my translation, after comparing several English versions
and producing a very literal translation that emphasizes the
original Greek terms -- as Peirce would have read them.
I discuss that paragraph and its relationship to writings by Peirce,
the Scholastics, and others in http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf
John
-----------------------------
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 .
