Phyllis, List, Don't worry about me; I can take care of myself.
It seems to me that Edwina much prefers what she calls 'debate' to 'discussion' -- one side wins the debate and the other loses, and I always know what side of the 'debate' I'll be on. I try to be reasonable, ask, for recent example, for reasonable terminology in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing between 'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But the problem, it turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that case, that *I'm the problem*: I'm too concerned about, terminology, and get "hung up" on it as the English expression goes. It seems like a kind of 'fault' on my part and she apparently sees no responsibility in such matters, so I should already know what she *meant* to say; or I've got to figure out what *she* means. And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the topics which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's, not that I haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I find her input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's semeiotic views more than reasonable and worthy of further development, well from her perspective, that's my problem. He and I are apparently "behind the times." I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in and says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the highway," well what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has been one of my major challenges as List moderator. On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence and her considerable professional accomplishments. Best, Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator) “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson < phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about > Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking > him. > Phyllis > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > >> 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://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=SCHANA-7&proxyId=&u=https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHANA-7.pdf> >> ." https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=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 Thinking >> Communication Studies >> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> 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 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 Thinking >>> Communication Studies >>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> 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), >>>> 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, USA >>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 Thinking >>>>> Communication Studies >>>>> LaGuardia 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 . >>>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >>>> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>>> >>> >>> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ► 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. >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
