Edwina, List: ET: I feel that your view of Peirce, with its 'idealism' rather than 'objective idealism' is in line with your own personal theism.
I feel that your view of Peirce, with its absurd claim that objective idealism is somehow not a species of idealism, is in line with your own personal atheism. ET: Now - whether these views are also similar to those of Peirce - is a matter for debate. No, again, Peirce's position is quite plainly stated in the text of CP 6.24-25--not dualism, neutralism, or materialism, but idealism; specifically, objective idealism, which holds "the psychical law alone as primordial" and "that matter is effete mind." Regards, Jon S. On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:27 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > I cannot find that section in 2.322 where Peirce inserts, in brackets > that, eg, 'consciousness' is [1ns]...etc - and I disagree with such an > insertion. Firstness is feeling, without consciousness - which requires a > separation of the experience such that one can be conscious of it. A > paramecium 'feels', i.e., is in a state of 1ns, but is not conscious of it. > > I also disagree that 'pure mind' is 3ns. Thirdness is a specific aspect of > time and space and habit-formation. It is not a pre-existent [prior to > space and time, ie, material embodiment] set of laws or mind. > > The more I read your comments and your inserts - I feel that your view of > Peirce, with its 'idealism' rather than 'objective idealism' is in line > with your own personal theism. Now - whether these views are also similar > to those of Peirce - is a matter for debate. You, of course, consider them > similar. I consider them very dissimilar. So- that's where it's at. > > Edwina > > On Sat 03/08/19 11:00 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Helmut, List: > > On the contrary, according to Peirce, the necessary being of pure mind > (3ns) does not require time, space, or matter. > > CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in > the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction > [2ns] and no quality [1ns], no matter [2ns], no consciousness [1ns], no > space and no time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For > that which is determinately not A supposes the being of A in some mode. > Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, > Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a symbol [3ns]. > That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be understood. > (EP 2:322; 1904) > > > CSP: Thus, He [God] is so much like a mind [3ns], and so little like a > singular Existent (meaning by an Existent, or object that Exists, a thing > subject to brute constraints, and reacting with all other Existents [2ns],) > and so opposed in His Nature to an ideal possibility [1ns], that we may > loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind [3ns]. (R 843:27[5]; 1908) > > > CSP: A full exposition of the pragmaticistic definition of Ens > necessarium would require many pages; but some hints toward it may be > given. A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since > all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and every > previous time. (CP 6.490; 1908) > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:32 PM Helmut Raulien < [email protected]> wrote: > >> List, >> >> I think, Edwina is right, because anything that happens, like an action >> of a mind, requires time, and time needs a scale, and a scale needs >> boundary conditions. These may be a standstill on one side, and light >> velocity, or something else, maybe infinity, on the other. So i guess, >> there cannot be a mind at work (at some certain, or any, speed) without the >> concept of standstill or effeteness, which would be matter. Also, a mind >> does not only require time, but space too, and space and matter are two >> things that, according to Einstein, are prerequisites for each other, as >> you, I forgot who, already have mentioned. >> >> Best, >> Helmut >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
