BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think that Peirce rejected the concept that Mind is 'immanent' in
Nature but that Mind is, as made up of all three categories, is an
ACTION of organization, of developing habits [Thirdness] AND also,
of dissipating these habits [within both Firstness and Secondness]
and enabling new habits and new morphologies to emerge.
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 1:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Helmut, List:
As I have pointed out before, Peirce was definitely not a pantheist
or panentheist, as I understand those terms.
CSP: … Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all
three Universes of experience. 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. (R 843:11[1])
CSP: 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 … (R
843:18&20[1-2])
CSP: 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. (R
843:25[4])
In each case, the emphasis on "not" is Peirce's in the original
manuscript, so he evidently wanted to be very clear about this.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Edwina, Gary, list, I think the NA is a mixture of incomplete,
perhaps circular, arguments, and a priori, similar to Anselm´s
(though Anselm thought his argument was valid). To decide whether
this mixture makes Peirce a theist or not is not easy, but I think
that many others, who call themselves theists, neither would say that
they have a complete and correct argument for doing so. Also, the
term "theist" is not clear, because a pantheist would call
her/himself a theist, as the word suggests, but a dogmatic theist
would probably call a pantheist an atheist. So, if (only if) for
example Peirce was a pantheist (or panentheist), it would both be
true calling him a theist and a non-theist, depending on from which
point of view. Was Peirce a pantheist or panentheist? Even if he did
not explicitly say that the mind of the universe is the mind of God
(Universe = God, pantheism), or the quasi-mind of the universe is a
part of the mind of God (Universe = part of God, panentheism),
somebody else might argue: Mind is what makes a person, so why not
call the quasi-mind of the universe God (or a part of God)? Though
this argument only works within pan(en)theism, as other theists would
miss the causal creational aspect. They also believe in God as the
"unmoved mover", but Peirce´s Tychism rather suggests that he is a
moved mover. But Tychism is not based on arguments either I think,
just on abduction from small scale to biggest possible scale. Best,
Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
