Jon - again, you are lifting words/phrases and inserting your own meanings.
1) To now claim that your statement that either a writer 'means what he says or
doesn't' is a 'common-sense assumption.... is not the same as 'either he meant
what [I interpret as his meaning] or he did not' - is not logical evidence -
but almost a threat'. You are leaving out ''what I interpret as his meaning'.
2) Again, the definitions given in the NA do not, in my view, correlate with
the emergence-evolution outlines of the universe given elsewhere in Peirce's
works [not only 1.412, but the outlines of tychasm and agapasm and synechism].
Therefore, I can only conclude that they are metaphors for the experience of
life. Not for the analysis of the triadic semiosic evolution of life. I
therefore do not comment on them.
I am aware that you tried, very hard, to suggest that the 'three universes of
experience' were advanced analyses by Peirce [because written at a later date]
and thus included the rejection of the Three Categories. My suggestion that the
Three Universes of Experience had nothing to do with the Three Categories,
which were not rejected by Peirce [as you were trying to claim] was denied by
you - but- eventually, you were persuaded by others [not by me] to abandon
this claim.
Beyond my suggestion that the NA is about the 'experience of life' - I have no
comment as, yet again, I see no correlation with Peirce's arguments about the
emergence and evolution of matter/mind in the universe. You attempt to
correlate them; I don't see this interpretation as valid.
3) i do NOT acknowledge that what I wrote yesterday 'more accurately reflects
my considered views'. All it does it reflect what i wrote yesterday. To insert
'more accurately' suggests a mechanical process of Mind where the words are
supposed to 'accurately match' the Mind's content!!!. I don't see Mind
operating that way. As I said, I am quite able to fritter nonsense today -
while my work of 20 years ago - might have been functional. There is NO
EVIDENCE of a linear progression of anyone's Mind or work.
I don't subscribe to your theory that the content of my mind is 'set'; I can
change my mind. I can evolve a theory; I can reject a perspective. And this
doesn't involve 'harmonization'.
4) The difference between 'rejection' and 'no comment' is obvious. The former
is an action of deliberate rejection of content, it is a JUDGMENT. The latter
is - no action and no judgment.
5) I don't consider that the NA has anything to do with Peirce's long analyses
of the emergence and evolution of matter/mind.
And as I said - in my statement that this type of argument goes nowhere and has
little to do with Peirce - that's exactly what is happening now.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
1) How does expressing a common-sense assumption about any author's writings
constitute "almost a threat"?
2) How do you "metaphorically" interpret these rather straightforward
statements by Peirce, all written in 1908 (emphases in original)?
1.. The word 'God,' so 'capitalized' (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience.
2.. I do not mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence is
"immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of
matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them.
3.. Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be meant, the
Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him,
omniscience, omnipotence, infinite benignity, a Being not "immanent in" the
Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of
them without exception ...
4.. But I had better add that I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent
in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of
ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all
minds, without any exception whatever.
3) Okay, but you also have not shown that "A Neglected Argument" is
irreconcilable with Peirce's earlier cosmological writings.
4) Acknowledging that something you wrote yesterday more accurately presents
your considered views does not nullify what you wrote twenty years ago--unless
you changed your mind during the intervening two decades. As I have said
before, that is one viable explanation that would be consistent with your view
on this matter--Peirce changed his mind sometime between 1887-1888 and 1908.
All I have tried to show is that such an explanation is not necessary; i.e., it
is possible to harmonize everything that Peirce wrote about the origin and
order of our existing universe--and therefore preferable to do so, rather than
positing a discontinuity in the development of his thought (more below).
5) Previously you stated, "I admit that I can't explain the NA - and I don't
even attempt to do so." You also stated, "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." I then asked what
practical effects are different between "rejection" and "no comment," besides
the words that we use for them; but I never got an answer. Now you are
claiming that you interpret "A Neglected Argument" metaphorically, whatever
that means (see above).
Are you not familiar with "the principle of charity"? It is not a
"sanctimonious claim" that I invented; it is a legitimate, well-established,
and widely endorsed method of interpretation. Per Wikipedia, "In philosophy
and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's
statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its
best, strongest possible interpretation." As Donald Davidson put it, "We make
maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way
that optimises agreement." So we assume that "A Neglected Argument," for
example, is fully consistent with everything else that Peirce wrote--unless and
until the evidence compels us to conclude otherwise.
Regards,
Jon
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon, list -
1) Your insistence that an interpretation of Peirce is bonded to 'either he
meant what [I interpret as his meaning] or he did not' - is not logical
evidence - but almost a threat.
2) My response to his NA is not to ignore it but to acknowledge that I
cannot interpret it within his full body of work - which includes his earlier
writings. Note - I am not ignoring it; I cannot correlate it except as
metaphoric, with his earlier writings.
3) Your claim that you have indeed correlated the NA with his earlier
writings remains your claim - you haven't convinced me of your having done so.
4) Your claim that IF I declare that my current writings 'more accurately
reflect' my 'considered' views [And what does 'considered views' mean?] THEN,
this nullifies my previous views is illogical. My current views [I don't know
what 'considered views' means] are based on and grounded in my previous work. I
don't subscribe to an axiom that 'a later view is a more accurate view' for
such a mechanical perspective has nothing to do with how the mind works - which
is not the same as the mechanical design process. Indeed, my later views might
well be weakened by a current inaccurate 'fad' attachment on my part; there is
no evidence that I am less susceptible to such emotions as I age.
5) Nor do I declare, anywhere, that Peirce rejected his later writings.
Would you please provide me with evidence for where I declare or even suggest
that he did so?
I have said that I, myself, am not able to correlate his NA with the rest
of his body of work - and again, your insistence that YOU have done so, has not
convinced me of such a result. Since I don't insert assumptions of 'the
principle of charity' which is a rather sanctimonious claim - then, I am not
going to claim that the NA IS or IS NOT consistent with Peirce's other work.
I am only talking about MYSELF - which is that I don't see that it, read
'in itself' rather than metaphorocally, correlates with the rest of his work.
Your insistence that it does; that your interpretation is 'beyond debate' ;
that 'it is incontrovertible' ..etc...are indeed powerful statements but these
phrases are not arguments.
So- I don't see the point of such counterclaims. They have less to do with
Peirce than with ourselves.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
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 <[email protected]>
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
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 .
