Edwina, List: If Peirce wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote, then it is incontrovertible that in 1908 he believed that God as *Ens necessarium *was the Creator of all three Universes of Experience and all of their contents, without exception. By what valid method of interpretation can anyone plausibly deny this?
You have admitted that your response to "A Neglected Argument" is to *ignore *it, because you cannot explain it; it does not and cannot align with your favored interpretation of Peirce's earlier cosmological writings. I, on the other hand, do not *reject* the latter, as you keep (wrongly) alleging; on the contrary, as I have said before, I seek to *harmonize *them with his later writings, under the principle of charity--we should assume *consistency *between two passages, unless there is no viable way to reconcile them. At the same time, I do believe that later writings should generally be given priority over earlier ones, in accordance with the presupposition that they reflect additional contemplation and refinement of the ideas discussed. Again, which more accurately presents your considered views--something that you wrote twenty years ago, or something that you wrote yesterday? I hope you realize that the sword you are now wielding cuts both ways. The FACT that you, yourself, are a firm non-believer in such a 'pre-existent Creator' seems to me, to encourage you to declare that Peirce, without proof, rejected his later writings. Regards, Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *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 <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *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 >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
