Jon, List
1) An IF-THEN argument, as you have set it up, removes the conditional and
interpretive factor inherent in an IF-THEN argument. That's because you have
inserted a moral condition, that suggests that IF one doesn't accept the THEN
assertions in the list you provided, THEN, it suggests that Peirce's comments
were lies. But the NA paper still has to be interpreted, - something you reject
- and I do not interpret the term 'God' as you do - with your quite literal and
theist reading.
2) I repeat: the definitions, if taken literally, in the 1908 NA paper do not
correlate with Peirce's earlier writings on the emergence of Mind and Matter;
the role of chance; the role of habit-formation. That is why I introduce the
suggestion of metaphor -
3) Your 'substitution' of 'universes' for 'categories' made no sense, as I
originally tried to explain to you - and failed, since you rarely accept any of
my comments as having any validity. And I don't agree with your new view - that
the universes are 'phenomenological and/or metaphysical manifestations of the
Categories'. The Categories stand quite well on their own in a
phenomenological and metaphysical manner.
4) No- we don't agree on the 'principle of charity' since it seems, to me at
least, empty because it can serve, incorrectly, to justify any interpretation.
5) I totally and absolutely reject your view that 'not judging is itself a
judgment'. That's pure semantic sophistry.
You are essentially saying that, for example, there is no difference between:
'murdering a man, and that same man dying naturally in his bed'. After all, to
you, there is no practical difference [since that man is dead in both
instances] and therefore, for you, there is no conceptual difference. I don't
agree.
In addition, you reject the statistical reality of neutrality - which would
foul up a LOT of scientific evaluations! In X-case, a population makes a
decision about Y. ...based on a scale of 1 to 5. The value of '3' is NEUTRAL
and is a valid statistic, suggestion NO JUDGMENT. Your one-dimenstional
binarism rejects neutrality. For you - everything MUST be a judgment; you
either accept or reject. I don't agree with this.
6) As for your conclusion that I'm in the minority - well, that's another
statistical flaw since of course, you don't know - and the 'well-chosen
average' is not always right.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List:
1) What? I never said anything about "what [I interpret as his meaning]";
those are your words, which you inserted into my conditional comment--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. His
words to this effect are quite plain and unambiguous in all four of the quotes
that I provided. By claiming that they are somehow "metaphorical," you have
effectively conceded that your view is that Peirce DID NOT write what he meant
or mean what he wrote.
2) With all due respect, this is very poor argumentation on your part. You
cannot correlate the four 1908 statements with Peirce's earlier cosmological
writings, so they simply must be "metaphorical"; i.e., pertaining to "the
experience of life" (whatever that means) rather than the origin and order of
our existing universe, despite explicitly calling God the Creator of everything
in all three Universes. And you simply assert this, without offering any
justification from the texts whatsoever.
To set the record straight, I never used the word "rejection" or "rejected"
with respect to the three Categories; I speculated that Peirce had substituted
"Universes" for "Categories" in his late writings, asked the List community for
help in evaluating this hypothesis, and ultimately withdrew it when confronted
with the fact that Peirce continued to write at length about the Categories in
the 1907 drafts of "Pragmatism." My revised view--which just goes to show that
some of us are willing and able to change our minds based on the discussions
here--is that the Universes are phenomenological and/or metaphysical
manifestations of the Categories. That makes sense not only in "A Neglected
Argument," but also in the 23 December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby, where
Peirce similarly defined three Universes and then assigned his ten semeiotic
trichotomies to them as Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. You cannot
have it both ways--if the Universes have nothing to do with the Categories,
then neither do these divisions of signs and their relations.
3) Okay, we disagree on the principle that later writings should generally be
given priority over earlier writings; I suspected that (and said so) a long
time ago. Do we at least agree on the principle of charity now?
4) The decision not to judge is itself a judgment. You choose not to take "A
Neglected Argument" into account, which implies that you do not consider it to
be relevant--i.e., you reject it when seeking to identify and understand
Peirce's cosmological views. There is no practical difference between
"rejection" and "no comment," so there is no conceptual difference.
5) Then I suspect that you are in a very small minority of Peirce scholars.
For one thing, what else could plausibly be the subject matter of CP 6.490?
Regards,
Jon
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
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 <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
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 .
