Clark, List: In various fragmentary drafts of "A Neglected Argument" that appear in R 841 and R 843, Peirce states each of the following.
"'God,' in what sense?" ask ye? When so 'capitalized' (as we Americans say) it is, throughout this paper, the definable proper noun, i.e. *Ens necessarium*, whether Real or not: He by Whom the three Universes of Experience are, supposedly, getting, directly or indirectly, created from Nothing--soberly, from less than a blank. In this paper, the word 'God,' will be employed as the definable proper name. Accordingly, it signifies '*Ens necessarium*." Reality is not determined by signification; but supposing Him Real, then out of Nothing, out of less than a Blank, He is creating the three Universes of Experience. The proper name, God, will in this paper be applied to that Being, Real or fictive, Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all three Universes of experience. "God" in what sense? you ask. When so "capitalized" (as we Americans say,) I intend it for the definable proper noun: Ens necessarium; whether Real or not: He who is creating the three Universes of Experience from Nothing; soberly, from less than a blank. As an example of an apparently answerless problem that a pure analysis will solve, take this. Suppose first no laws to be, then that nothing exist, finally that there is no Idea, no time, no consequence, even in possibility. Why should not this blank Nothing have been all? The analysis is not easy, as far as I see; but it can be performed; and it leads to the conception of a *Necessary Being*, the foundation of theology, though not of religion. So I think we can say pretty definitively that Peirce's conception of God, at least in 1908, does involve God actually creating out of "nothing," which he consistently characterizes as "less than a blank." Regarding the Categories, I mean "govern" more like your second characterization; not dependence, but how laws of nature (3ns) "govern" actual objects (2ns) and their embodied monadic predicates (1ns). Does that make more sense? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@libertypages.com> wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ... > > - Pragmatically, all real reactions have a tendency toward regularity > (i.e., habit-taking). > - Philosophically, 1ns and 2ns are both governed by 3ns (cf. CP 6.202). > - Theologically, God created everything else out of absolutely nothing. > > Given Peirce’s conception of God is God actually creating out of nothing? > Further is the nothing as pure potency the nothing of *creation ex nihilo* > ? > > Secondly when you say firstness and secondness are governed by thirdness > I’m not sure what you mean. CP 6.202 seems to not be addressing that issue, > depending upon what you mean by “govern.” That passage is more about Peirce > objecting to his whole system being called tychism. He does say thirdness > has a commanding function but he also says “that Firstness or chance and > Secondness or Brute reaction are other elements without the independence of > which Thirdness would not have anything upon which to operate.” (6.202) > That is they aren’t governed if by govern we mean dependence. Of course if > by govern we mean lawlike recognition of their manifestation then I’d > agree. > > My apologies if I’m misreading you. >
----------------------------- 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 .
