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 <tabor...@primus.ca> 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 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 .