Gary, list
I find the certainty with which positions are taken here, and asserted, rather
disconcerting. I am not an expert on Peirce at all, so I cannot comment on the
verity of what he had said or intended.
My own position on the nature of God? I keep out of that conversation. I can no
more know God than I can know the “true” nature of empty space. It does not
interest me to conjecture about gods, for my mind-body is not equipped to
apprehend such an entity… any more than a neuron is equipped to understand me.
Here is a poem that I wrote around 2005. People can read into this pretty much
whatever they want. Is God implied? Merely a metaphor? Or is he real? Maybe a
personal god who affects us directly? Take your pick… though I should add that
I find the idea of a personal god especially troublesome, nay self-indulgent,
as per my views on human exceptionalism… in a universe comprised of trillions
of billions of planets (by current conservative guesstimates), as if each and
every one of us could be so important.
I AM CULTURE
Sociologists studied the behaviors of crowds, and never saw my essence.
Psychologists analyzed the behaviors of individuals, and never saw my
form.
Others - also with their own personal problems and private lives - have
categorized, labeled and pigeonholed me.
They call me “Culture”.
But you don’t know me.
Indeed, very few people can even guess how I might affect their lives.
Yet I am responsible for the way that you and all your brothers and
sisters live and interact.
I am responsible for the successes and failures of each and every one
of your kind.
I am more powerful than you could ever have imagined.
Yet whole lives can be lived without ever knowing - or caring - that I
exist.
Everyone sees and responds to the consequences of my power.
Each and every thought, each and every action is a direct result of
interactions with my power.
Even if one of your kind knew me - even if he could know my power and
would choose to rebel against it, he would be powerless.
For he is but one against..... the world?
And I would cast him out. For I AM his world. And he knows no other.
For I have taught him how to interpret all he experiences.
And how to respond to all he experiences.
I have taught his parents and their parents before them.
For I am the source of his knowledge of Being.
I am his reality.
I reside within him and he, within me.
My form - his reality - is duplicated in his mind.
In isolation, he is like a piece removed from a hologram - for he
contains most of the information required to duplicate my form.
Should he turn against me, he would only be turning against himself.
For I am all he knows.
This would be his demise.
For me, his demise is without consequence.
For my form lives on, in the minds of each and every one of you.
And I will continue to be, long after you have been survived by your
children.
And I would banish him to beyond the fringes of the all the world’s
mythos’.
I would leave him to wander in a penumbral limbo - left to stumble in
the quagmire of his own insanity.
And for me, nothing changes.
I am history.
I am the present.
I am the words in your language.
I am the collective consciousness of all of you.
I change only when you all change, together.
I am you, the self is the other.
I am your reality.
You think you are superior to nature’s beasts, yet you are governed by
the same laws.
For all life, all logics of every organism that has ever been are
governed by the laws of habit, association, choice and desire.
You think that you are so independent,
Yet everything you know, you’ve imitated from me.
Can you really believe yourself to be beyond beast?
You, the beast with human body,
You, the beast with tongue with which to speak and hands with which to
work, I give of myself that you might be.
For without me you can only ever revert to the beast whence you came,
The beast you deny, the beast that lurks in the shadows of your
subconscious mind.
You, the beast of human form.
You perceive the illusion of the power that you have over your own life.
With obligations to no-one but those you know.
Trapped by the illusion of your ego.
You perceive the illusion because you can choose that which you desire.
But it is I that shapes your desires.
It is I and I alone, that delivers the options from which you must
choose.
For in reality, your own life - everything you have been and will
become - is intertwined with the lives of others.
A complex web of action, interaction and reaction.
Culture.
The person who understands me understands himself.
He who understands me knows heaven and hell and everything between.
He who truly understands me knows thought and the sculptor of life.
And he knows to be humble.
For each of you is but a neuron in the mind of One that is far greater.
And me, I am but one of His thoughts in time.
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:23 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design
Edwina, list,
You can obstinately stand by your views, but that won't make them any more
logical. You wrote:
ET: 1] . . . I repeat; the terms of God and Real are vague and can mean
anything that one subjectively wishes.
2] With regard to the second point - same problem; the terms are vague.
You totally misconstrue what Peirce means by 'vague' and how he uses it in many
discussions, often in consideration of logical issues where he distinguishes
the vague from the general. For example:
1905 | Issues of Pragmaticism | EP 2:351; CP 5.447-448
[A]nything is general in so far as the principle of excluded middle does not
apply to it and is vague in so far as the principle of contradiction does not
apply to it.
1904 | Foundations of Mathematics [R] | MS [R] 10:1-2
If a sign allows the utterer a certain latitude of choice as to what his
meaning may be; so that he may perhaps defend its applicability in several ways
[…] then the sign may be said to be vague, or non-definite.
As to the vagueness involved in the ideas 'God' and the 'Real', Jon has already
discussed this at some length, so again I won't repeat his discussion of how
Peirce employs the idea of 'vagueness' in those context. But for Peirce "vague"
in any context certainly does not "mean anything that one subjectively wishes."
That is patent nonsense.
Peirce's offers several definitions of the vague and vagueness which are fairly
similar and seem to me to apply to the current discussion.
1904 | Foundations of Mathematics [R] | MS [R] 11:1
If a sign allows a latitude of choice to the utterer in certain respects and
within certain limits, as to what its object or meaning shall be, it may be
called vague, or non-determinate.
Note, the "latitude of choice" is "in certain respects and within certain
limits."
Peirce defines both "God" (as Ens Necessarium and as Real Creator of the Three
Universes, and all that these concepts, albeit, vaguely imply); and he defines
the "Real":
1905 | Materials for Monist Article: The Consequences of Pragmaticism. Vols. I
and II [R] | MS [R] 288:117
A real is anything that is not affected by men’s cognitions about it.
ET: 3] No - I cannot offer any retraction, since I don't accept your view.
There's a huge difference in meaning between 'Creator' and 'creating'.
In the present context, this is not so as Peirce sees it. From A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God:
The word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the definable proper
name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator of all three
Universes of Experience.
You conclude:
ET: That is- God/Mind is creating the universe - and, as outlined in Peirce's
description of the emergence of Mind-as-Matter, in 1.412, this constant action
of creation is not via some prior Supreme Power, not via some Supreme Design,
not via some metaphysical Agency, but is an ongoing Complex Self-Organized
Action. Therefore - I do not see God as the Creator; I read Peirce to outline
how Mind/Matter are constantly forming, dissipating and forming novel matter
within a complex self-organized interaction of the Three Categories.
Well, I can certainly agree that, as you wrote, "God/Mind is creating the
universe." But, in my opinion, you ought to consider not only 1.412 but also
the final lectures of the 1898 series (not in the CP) where Peirce radically
modifies his view of the emergence of the cosmos. Jon's recent paper takes this
up rather masterfully, in my opinion. Your autopoietic (self-organizing) view
of the emergence of the cosmos would be news to Peirce, while I think that he
would find it valuable in consideration of the emergence of biological life.
Edwina, I am personally getting tired of this "debate." You seem married to
your positions and unwilling to reconsider any one of them or any part of any
one of them. I find your analysis of Peirce's views of God and religion
illogical. At this point and out of intellectual exhaustion I usually say, you
can have the last word.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
718 482-5690
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Gary R, list:
I stand by my views.
1] I wrote: " its premises could be false. The problem is: the terms: God,
Real - are vague and therefore, can mean anything that one subjectively wishes."
And I repeat; the terms of God and Real are vague and can mean anything that
one subjectively wishes.
2] With regard to the second point - same problem; the terms are vague.
3] No - I cannot offer any retraction, since I don't accept your view. Peirce
wrote: "Do you believe this Supreme Being to have been the creator of the
universe"? Not so much to have been as to be now creating the universe. 6.505
There's a huge difference in meaning between 'Creator' and 'creating'.
That is- God/Mind is creating the universe - and, as outlined in Peirce's
description of the emergence of Mind-as-Matter, in 1.412, this constant action
of creation is not via some prior Supreme Power, not via some Supreme Design,
not via some metaphysical Agency, but is an ongoing Complex Self-Organized
Action. Therefore - I do not see God as the Creator; I read Peirce to outline
how Mind/Matter are constantly forming, dissipating and forming novel matter
within a complex self-organized interaction of the Three Categories.
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 6:46 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon, responding to Edwina wrote:
1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my
premises is false, such that the conclusion is false?
2. The subject at hand is not what one can say, but what Peirce did say; he
believed in God, and affirmed His Reality.
3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on the
contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over.
1. Your premises are not false, Jon, and this nonsense coming from Edwina is
strictly illogical
2. Peirce most certainly said "he believed in God, and affirmed His Reality"
and to attempt to deny this is simply absurd.
3. Saying, as Edwina did, that "Peirce denies God as the Creator" is false and
the whole of her absurd illogic on this matter is becoming offensive. I would
like to strongly suggest that you offer a retraction of that last statement,
Edwina.
Best,
Gary (writing at 3. as list moderator)
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
718 482-5690
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Edwina, List:
1. Defining "God" and "Real" as Peirce did in CP 6.452-453, which of my
premises is false, such that the conclusion is false?
2. The subject at hand is not what one can say, but what Peirce did say; he
believed in God, and affirmed His Reality.
3. It is demonstrably false that "Peirce denies God as the Creator"; on the
contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over.
Jon S.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
JAS, list:
1] Your argument may be logically valid as a basic syllogism but its premises
could be false. The problem is: the terms: God, Real - are vague and therefore,
can mean anything that one subjectively wishes.
2] Yes - I suggest that one can say "I believe in god' and yet, deny god's
reality - since the terms are vague [god, reality]..Furthermore, such vague
beliefs are, in themselves, without anything other than emotional meaning and
strictly personal and subjective.
3] Peirce denies God as the Creator - instead, his complex semiosis means that
matter is always being created, Mind-as-Matter.
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 4:41 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina:
This is one of two posts that I am sending more or less simultaneously; please
read the other one first.
Here is the only formal argument that I offered below; note that it is
deductively valid.
Someone who believes that God is Real is a theist.
Peirce believed that God is Real.
Therefore, Peirce was a theist.
Since you deny the conclusion, which premise do you deny? The first is a
straightforward definition, and the second is something that Peirce explicitly
affirmed.
1. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can say, "I believe in God," and
yet deny that God is Real? That strikes me as completely incoherent.
2. Again, I stated quite plainly, " a theist is by definition someone who
believes in God." Are you operating with some other idiosyncratic definition
of "theist"?
3. Peirce explicitly defined both "God" and "Real" at the beginning of "A
Neglected Argument," and plainly described God (so defined) as being " in my
belief Really [so defined] creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP
6.452-453). "Theistic God" is redundant; what kind of God could possibly be
"non-theistic"? If what you are really questioning is whether Peirce believed
in a personal God, then there is likewise no need to speculate.
CSP: The mere carrying out of predetermined purposes is mechanical. This
remark has an application to the philosophy of religion. It is that a genuine
evolutionary philosophy, that is, one that makes the principle of growth a
primordial element of the universe, is so far from being antagonistic to the
idea of a personal creator that it is really inseparable from that idea; while
a necessitarian religion is in an altogether false position and is destined to
become disintegrated. But a pseudo-evolutionism which enthrones mechanical law
above the principle of growth is at once scientifically unsatisfactory, as
giving no possible hint of how the universe has come about, and hostile to all
hopes of personal relations to God. (CP 6.157; 1892, emphasis added)
CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In
considering personality, that philosophy [synechism] is forced to accept the
doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, it cannot but
admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct perception of that
person and indeed be in personal communication with him. Now, if that be the
case, the question arises how it is possible that the existence of this being
should ever have been doubted by anybody. The only answer that I can at present
make is that facts that stand before our face and eyes and stare us in the face
are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily discerned. That has been
remarked from time immemorial. (CP 6.162; 1892, emphasis added)
CSP: But when a person finds himself in the society of others, he is just as
sure of their existence as of his own, though he may entertain a metaphysical
theory that they are all hypostatically the same ego. In like manner, when a
man has that experience with which religion sets out, he has as good
reason--putting aside metaphysical subtilties--to believe in the living
personality of God as he has to believe in his own . Indeed, belief is a word
inappropriate to such direct perception. (CP 6.436; 1893, emphasis added)
4. There has to be some common denominator that warrants categorizing all
theists as theists; such is the nature of any general term. Peirce's point was
that this common denominator is necessarily vague, rather than definite.
Demanding "evidence of what exactly a 'vague concept of God' specifically
means" is self-contradictory; "vague" is the opposite of "exact" and "specific."
5. The Five Ways are indeed deductively valid, but this merely entails that
their conclusions follow necessarily from their premises. Can you provide
evidence that all Christians subscribe to every single one of those premises?
On the contrary, I am a Christian, but neither a Roman Catholic nor a Thomist;
consequently, while I certainly embrace some of Aquinas's premises, I do not
hold to all of them.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
JAS, list:
Those are all circular and thus invalid arguments.
1] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' with a claim that this person
is also saying: 'God is Real' - is an invalid argument - both syllogistically
and informally, [the latter since the terms of 'real' and god are undefined'.]
and syllogistically since thee are only two terms :god/real]
2] To equate someone who says: 'I believe in God' to be a 'theist' is also an
invalid argument, since yet again, the terms 'theist' and God are not defined.
3] You can't claim that the use of the terms '[God, Real] are the same for
everyone - so, your assertion that Peirce's 'God' is a theistic God - is
unfounded.
4] Please provide evidence for your assertion that 'a vague conception of God
that is common to most or all theists". I am not aware of such evidence and
await your proof. Please also provide evidence of what exactly a 'vague concept
of God' specifically means!
My understanding of Peirce's equation of God with Mind is a very specific
equation. Nothing vague about it at all.
And please provide evidence that the Five Ways - which is a famous argument
which you seem to be unaware of - is held by only a certain subset of
Christians and held only by the use of Authority rather than Reason. [Note - I
don't accept the Five Ways - but, that doesn't take away from their deductive
validity].
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 1:19 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, List:
When someone says, "I believe in God," it is bordering on the ridiculous to
assert that the person is not saying that God is Real; and it is completely
ridiculous to claim that the person is not a theist, since a theist is by
definition someone who believes in God. It gets worse for your position,
though--in Peirce's case, he stated not only that he believed in God, but
also--quite explicitly--that he believed God to be Real. There is simply no
getting around this--someone who believes that God is Real is a theist, and
Peirce believed that God is Real; therefore, Peirce was a theist.
The allegation that there is "a multitude of descriptions" of God is a red
herring. Again, Peirce quite deliberately argued for a vague conception of God
that is common to most or all theists, while the Five Ways advocate a definite
conception of God that is held only by a certain subset of Christians. The
latter do not at all deal with "different subjective descriptions of the term
'God'," but a very specific definition; and they are strictly "Authoritative"
only for Roman Catholic Thomists.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSch midt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day.
[mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did that..mutter, mutter].
By the way - I fully agree with your comments. I think it is bordering on the
ridiculous to declare that because someone says:
"I believe in God'..that this means that 'God is Real'..and that this person is
also a theist...[That's a reverse and invalid Argument]...\\
..and then, when asked to define the term. people.come up with a multitude of
descriptions which differ from those of other people - So, we cannot conclude,
as some would like to conclude: That God is Real. Nor can we conclude that
these people are all 'theists'.
That's what the 'Five Ways' was meant to deal with; the different subjective
descriptions of the term 'God'. It certainly set up the Authoritative
definition of the Church, but as purely rhetorical it doesn't, in my view,
have any validity as an Argument.
So- I think it remains; belief in God is subjective and the definition of God
is equally subjective. Therefore - to move from the subjective to the objective
[ie to declare that God is Real]...can't be done.
Edwina
On Sun 13/05/18 9:41 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 5/13/2018 8:50 AM, John Collier wrote:
> I am afraid I do not find these arguments coherent with anything
> I was taught to be God.
I recall a survey some years ago in which the interviewers asked
people two questions: (1) Do you believe in God? (2) How would
you describe God?
What they found: No two people described God in the same way.
The descriptions by believers and non-believers showed the same
amount of variation. And from the way God was described, they
couldn't reliably distinguish believers from non-believers.
This was not a statistically reliable survey. And very few
of the people they surveyed had studied any philosophical
or theological arguments.
But from my own experience, I find it convincing. And from hearing
or reading what people who have studied philosophy or theology say,
I suspect that the results would have been the same, independently
of how much they had thought, read, or studied.
Happy Sunday, Sabbath, Meditation Day, or Picnic Day to all,
John
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
