I thought this was a discussion list, not debate. I am very uncomfortable with argumentation. I am not willing to be a party to that behavior.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 7:08 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Phyllis, List > > I'm not in the least attacking Gary R personally! I'm debating his > argument - with which I disagree. That's a huge difference. > > Surely we, on this list, can debate an issue without also bringing in our > own 'persons' into the argument. > > But I see no reason why debate about issues can't include disagreement > with the other person's point of view and analysis! > > If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we 'like' the > person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds like politics to me! > > Edwina > > > > On Wed 08/09/21 9:42 PM , Phyllis Chiasson > phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent: > > 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.
