Jon, list - and that's my point. You insist that 'there is really no debating
whether he (at least eventually) believed that there is a non-immanent Creator
involved; he said so explicitly, in "A Neglected Argument" and its manuscript
drafts. "
But there IS a debate. You choose to ignore his other arguments against such a
pre-existent Creator as 'irrelevant' because you declare, without proof, that
since he wrote such views earlier in his life that he thus, according to you,
'evolved' out of them. The FACT that you, yourself, are a firm believer in such
a 'pre-existent Creator' seems to me, to encourage you to declare that Peirce,
without proof, rejected his earlier writings. You insert the same focus in
other areas, such as the notion of a pre-world 'ur-Thirdness' - since you,
yourself, firmly believe in a prior Force.
And since you tend to immediately reject any attempts to suggest that your
interpretations of Peirce's beliefs and yours are not identical - then, this
thread moves away from discussion to circularity with you insisting that you
have 'proved your case' and 'there is no debate'. But - I don't see such
finality.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
ET: 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.
Gary R. and I have laid out our reasons for seeing all of that in Peirce. In
particular, there is really no debating whether he (at least eventually)
believed that there is a non-immanent Creator involved; he said so explicitly,
in "A Neglected Argument" and its manuscript drafts. One can argue that he was
wrong about that, but not that he himself was an atheist, even though atheists
can certainly gain many valuable insights from him; ditto for pantheists and
panentheists.
ET: 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.
There is always a danger--a likelihood, even--that our own personal biases
will influence our "readings" of someone else's writings; but that extends to
all aspects of Peirce's thought, not just these particular metaphysical
matters. By discussing them in a forum like this, we are giving others the
opportunity to help us recognize when we fall into such patterns and adjust our
thinking accordingly. Some of us have even changed our minds as a result of
these conversations.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
