Dear list: The pragmatic maxim:
If good because useful, then not useful because we do not even look to it. Therefore, not useful. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational > ur-continuity. > > > I’m not sure that’s right. There’s certainly a type of continuity in > quantum field theory but it’s unlike Peirce’s ur-continutiy because QFT > pretty well assumes space/time are in some sense well defined. As soon as > you start trying to deal with space/time more critically you end up having > problems which is of course why string theory and other models like loop > quantum gravity arose. > > Peirce’s ur-continuity largely is following a platonic emanation model and > thus is logically *before* space and time. (Even space in the Timaeus is > a much more abstract notion of receptacle even if it clearly is > metaphorically tied to our experience of space) I think it’s therefore > misleading to apply QFT to Peirce here. > > What fascinates me with this interpretation is that it changes the > conception of God from the person creator we are used in standard > Christianity and many other religions to a general process ontology… > > > I’m not sure the creator in standard Christianity is a person-creator. At > least as I understand most of the theology. I think the typical lay belief > about creation is much more a bearded man making everything but that’s > simply not what you encounter in Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus or others. > This gets into my comment last week between God as Being or source of Being > versus God as intervening being. > > The process view that I think comes closest to Peirce is a kind of halfway > point between the two views in traditional Christianity. It’s not really > being or ground but neither is it really an intervening being. (That’s > especially true in Peirce’s real but not existing view) > > An other way of putting this is to look at the various forms of > Christian/Platonism that were less traditional. So gnosticism had the > Platonic One as God and also had Jesus but had Plato’s demiurge as a kind > of evil in between being. (Often associated by them with the God of the Old > Testament for various reasons) You get similar ideas in a more positive way > in Kabbalism with the En Sof as the platonic One and Adam Kadmon being > similar to the demiurge. The logic of God that Peirce seems focused on is > the demiurge even though he breaks it into three components. Although again > that’s not without precedence. The various gnostic groups often got > complicated in their emanation theories. The 12th century Kabbalisms tied > Adam Kadmon to the Sefiroth or a set of 10 complicated emanations. > > building on phenomenology in its metaphysics and thus allows for the > qualitative sciences in a sort of non-reductive view of all the sciences > that is not fundamentally opposing as spiritual world view and it makes a > lot of theory of meditation plausible, which we have not between able to > handle physiologically or psychologically so far. > > > Not quite sure what you mean here. > > Thus it allows a dialog between science and spirituality and leaves the > theist religions to faith, as I think they should. The subjective relation > with the divine should in my view be a personal thing. The possibility of > it not. > > > I’m not sure I agree here. I think faith has a complicated role in Peirce. > I think Peirce’s view of the theistic religions, especially Christianity, > was that it shouldn’t be left to faith typically. That is there’s a > functional faith tied to inquiry and evolution Peirce saw as valuable. > There’s an other type of faith that cuts off inquiry that Peirce would see > as closer to accepting dogmatism and far from praiseworthy. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
