BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List
My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly, stray into common linguistic usage.
So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument.
I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of
'god' is higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or
whatever! They all refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many
times before - to Peirce, 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human
species.
I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' -
since the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism -
none of which have anything to do with what I see as the
'force'/functionality of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to
tell me that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a
confusing term, since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically
loaded with meanings that have absolutely no relevance to what I
understand as agapism - which is the 'tendency of organisms of
mind/matter to connect, network, interact, develop commonalities
[synechism].
As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree -
I brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose'
and 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what
YOU mean by 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the
only purpose of matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of
energy, which is accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity
of matter/mind - and I don't attribute any morality to this. Morality
is important in our human societies - since we lack innate knowledge -
but- it is an issue for sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and
religious systems.
Edwina
On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List,
ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my
comment refers to 'reality'
GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a
discussion concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be
more careful with your choice of words. In short, the burden is on
you to choose terminology which best expresses your thinking in the
matter, not on me to guess it.
ET: Therefore, your- and even Peirce's suggestion of fetishism is
not relevant.
GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does,
that to refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the
term 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even
Peirce's suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of
"react with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in
that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)
And that is all.
ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations
in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.
GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the
singular reality which is God. Of course I can't be expected to
present in an email message anything analyzing or explaining " 'why'
such a creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does"
(btw, 'force' is also associated by Peirce with 2ns, not 3ns,
continuity, etc.)
But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce
has in mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his
semeiotic and cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's
essay, " A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
Reality of God." https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1
[1]
From the Abstract:
In one [of the two additaments with which Peirce concluded the N.A.
but which were not published in the CP] he linked the hypothesis of
God's Reality to his entire theory of logic as semeiotic. . . In the
other, he offered a final outline of his cosmology, in which the
Reality of God as Ens necessarium is indispensable to both the origin
and order of our existing universe of Signs.
ET: But I am satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature
as analogies.
GR: That's fine if one doesn't forget that they are only analogies.
As he writes at 6.502: "that analogue of a mind -- for it is
impossible to say that any human attribute is literally applicable
-- is what [the pragmaticist] means by "God" (emphasis added).ET: As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!]GR: No doubt your
definition would differ from mine; and Peirce's as well if you read
"Evolutionary Love" within the scientific context in which it is
framed. ET: This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and
Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving
'rational complex diversity'. GR: Well, good! For 'agapism' IS
evolutionary love.
. . . the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical
necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos
may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism (1893 |
Evolutionary Love | CP 6.302; emphasis added)
ET: But there is no utopian Finale!GR: A "utopian Finale!" Who
suggested any such thing? Certainly not I; certainly not Peirce.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, List
I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495. But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition!
Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.
Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
'order' and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me, defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
matter. The FUNCTION of such complexity networking is to prevent the
dissipation of matter to free energy. This is certainly not
Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!
Edwina
On Wed 08/09/21 4:32 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [3]
sent:
Edwina, List,
ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god'
is the lack of a clear definition of that term.
As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to
refer to the "existence" of God, that ia to speak as if God were but
a thing among other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God."
As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
CSP: 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.
ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that
can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view -
and I consider that this is also Peirce's view
If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the
world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course,
the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism.
There are indeed many.
ET: But there is no other attribute that I can see within the
Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of
energy]; no inherent morality etc.
Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce.
See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893),
the last in The Monist series. Joseph Ransdell described it as " An
impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution,
set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was
coming into ascendance."
Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any
atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who
do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of
theism.
For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the
reality of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic
definition of God (CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A
Neglected Argument (CP 6.490)
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is
the lack of a clear definition of that term.
As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically
- conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind.
That is, my view - and I consider that this is also Peirce's view -
is that the hylomorphic operation of matter and mind means that
matter is always organized in its Form, such that it can both
interact with other Forms of Matter, and replicate these Forms and
interactions in continuity. This organization of interactions and
continuity of material form is obviously a function of Mind. But
there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc.
Edwina
On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Gary R., List:
GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday.
There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the
hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in
accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which
includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific
inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility,
whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled
growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
experience.
Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[4]), although the historical order of inquiry is
abduction/retroduction followed by deduction and then induction,
there is a sense in which its logical order is induction followed by
abduction/retroduction.
CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that
the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders
itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially
inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its
logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven
in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its
instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern
science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55,
1898)
Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully
soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond wrote:
Phyllis, List,
Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday.
I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today,
namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to
cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free
for more general uses.
However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments
that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis
added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of
colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across,
or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some
likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and
so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question
regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or
retroduction is invariably from experience.
So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a
teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to
help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too
tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of
the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [7] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
