Edwina, List: ET: I don't need to be told, again, that I am either too stubborn or too stupid for a discussion.
Those are your words, not mine. To set the record straight, here is what I actually said in consecutive posts. JAS: *Rational *people are open to persuasion, rather than dogmatically maintaining their predetermined views regardless of the evidence. *Credible *scholars ground their opinions about a past author in what his texts actually say, rather than projecting their predetermined views on him. I *always* encourage others to draw their own conclusions after evaluating the various arguments. JAS: At this point, I have to wonder why I bothered spending so much time and effort explaining myself (again, and again, and again) to someone who is so obviously determined *not *to understand, or perhaps is simply *incapable *of understanding. Frankly, I am not sure which of these is the more charitable alternative. I apologize for the tone of the second quote, which reflects my frustration in the heat of the moment. The truth is that both of us are quite relentless in our own ways, but from my standpoint, our latest dispute was never about my *opinion *being right and yours being wrong--it was about a plain-sense reading of *Peirce's *own texts, specifically CP 6.24-25. The truth is that both of us are also quite intelligent, as our List participation indicates, but that is not the same thing as being capable of understanding--especially when a previously settled belief is challenged. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 6:14 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS > > I made the decision, since your very public post that you considered me > either [or both] too stubborn and/or too stupid to discuss Peirce with you > [-which actually means, to accept Your Opinion as The Right One] - that I > would no longer discuss anything with you. I don't need to be told, again, > that I am either too stubborn or too stupid for a discussion. > > Edwina > > On Fri 16/08/19 6:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of laws > ... > > > There is much more to 3ns than "the development of laws." > > ET: ... and such laws develop afterwards, as matter develops. Not before. > > > Physical laws govern matter and developed from the psychical law (habit) > of mind. > > ET: His own outline of the origin are that first - is 1ns, then 2nd, then > 3ns. > > > Indeed, for each actualization of a possibility, 1ns is temporally primordial > (from the beginning) in the sequence of events. > > ET: I don't see any reference to a pre-existent [and it would have to be > pre-existent] continuum of 3ns. > > > Existence is 2ns, but 3ns is logically primordial (basic and fundamental) > in the constitution of being. Without a blackboard, there can be no chalk > marks. > > As Gary R. said, you disagree, and nothing we can say here is likely to > change your mind. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary R, list >> >> I think that Peirce's cosmological outlines and references to 'nothing' - >> both in 1.412 and 6.215 and on - are not the 'nothing of death/negation' - >> but, this still doesn't, to me, set up any suggestion of a primordial 3ns. >> I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of laws - and >> such laws develop afterwards, as matter develops. Not before. The laws are >> not primordial and I think Peirce has said that often enough. His own >> outline of the origin are that first - is 1ns, then 2nd, then 3ns. I don't >> see any reference to a pre-existent [and it would have to be pre-existent] >> 'continuum of 3ns. >> >> That is - you say that the secondary literature posits a primary 3ns - >> but I don't see this in Peirce. >> >> And on another issue - yes, it's interesting - there is >> scientific discussion over whether a Big Bang was the origin or not, but >> that's not relevant here, I think. >> >> Edwina >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
