Gary, R, List > I certainly agree that Peirce was not an ‘orthodox Christian’ - and think > that this term - and the term of ’theism’ needs to be clarified within > Peirce’s [not someone who is not Peirce] - understanding.
> I think Peirce's outline of the categories is a basis for understanding some > of what these terms means - since the operation of the categories must > include such concepts as the origin of the universe, of evolution and > adaptation - as well as the societal roles that we understand that religion > plays. > Therefore I also disagree with JAS’s assertion that ’something cannot come > out of nothing’ - and thus, his claim that an "there must have been something > else real that produced all observable phenomena (contingent being)”.Such a > comment could only be made when one is thinking within and only within the > mindset of Secondndess - which requires kinetic linear causality. > But Peirce’s explanation of the universe as it developed from Nothing [1.412] > isn’t an analysis based within Secondness but explains how ALL’ THREE > categories emerged within this realm of Nothing. As such, these three modes > together produce, within their capacity of self-organization and > self-creation - our universe. That is how I understand Peirce’s writings - > which is quite a different understanding from that of JAS - and , as I’ve > noted, there’s no point in our discussing these issues - as we are both > ’settled’ in our interpretations [and thus, alas, both do indeed, can > superficially be said to block the way of inquiry]. As for anthropomorphic images - our species ’thinks’ only in symbols, and so - it is an easy analytic mode - but there are other images and symbolic means to explain these issues - even including mathematics! - but the anthropomorphic ones tend to align our identities with ‘more powerful forces than our individual selves - and are helpful to clarify our moral and ethical rules. But - I think they can be misleading and dangerous …especially when set up within beliefs held by ’tenacity’ and ‘authority’ . Edwina > . > On Aug 26, 2024, at 8:14 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > While Jon has shown that Peirce considered himself to be a theist "[b]y his > own abundant and unambiguous testimony" in the near exhaustive group of > quotations which he supplied. I would only add that, in my view, Peirce was a > peculiar sort of theist, and certainly not an orthodox one. Indeed, as he > wrote, he was "very far from being an orthodox Christian." > "I am very far from being an orthodox Christian; but as I see deeper into the > creeds than the men who merely mouth them, and see them in a different way, I > see more clearly their preciousness" (In a letter to William James dated > November 25, 1902) > > I would suggest that this passage reflects Peirce's nuanced and personal > interpretation of the creeds (and not only the creeds), differing from more > conventional understandings and beliefs held by many -- if not most -- others > in his congregational circle(s). [I had earlier noted that from my youth I > too have 'translated' the myths, rituals, and Christian creeds into ideas > that were also anything but orthodox and conventional, such as my conception > of the Cosmic Christ. I think it likely that others, perhaps many others, > have done something like that (or how would one ever arrive at such a concept > as the Cosmic Christ?)] > > As for Peirce's views, as remarked, Jon has convincingly and, as he sees it, > decisively argued that Peirce was a theist, although he adds that Peirce > presents his theistic position as "but a highly plausible hypothesis." > > JAS: In the state of things logically antecedent to the three universes (and > corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of any phenomena > whatsoever, there must have been something else real that produced all > observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is real in every > possible state of things (necessary being). He presents this as neither a > hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible hypothesis, and > elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. > > CSP: I have after long years of the severest examination become fully > satisfied that, other things being equal, an anthropomorphic conception, > whether it makes the best nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or not, > is far more likely to be approximately true than one that is not > anthropomorphic. ... [A]s between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent > Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a question > of which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47n, EP 2:152, 1903) > > Jon is saying that Peirce's views are both theistic and anthropomorphic, and > these two are conjoined: "[Peirce] even explicitly endorses anthropomorphism > in conjunction with theism." > > CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in > particular if it implies theism, I am an anthropomorphist. > > GR: But regarding anthropomorphism, Peirce tellingly writes elsewhere: > > If I were to attach a definite meaning to “anthropomorphism,” I should think > it stood to reason that a man could not have any idea that was not > anthropomorphic, and that it was simply to repeat the error of Kant to > attempt to escape anthropomorphism (emphasis added). MS [R] 293:1-2; NEM > 4:313 1906-7 > Here Peirce says that he considered it "reasonable" to believe that all our > ideas are necessarily anthropomorphic. However, as both Peirce and Schiller > were pragmatists, their anthropomorphism involves -- to some smaller or > greater extent -- their understanding that we humans naturally understand the > world and concepts, including God, through our own experiences and > characteristics. Thus, when thinking about God, people quasi-necessarily > ascribe human qualities, emotions, and intentions to the divine. Further, > Peirce's and Schiller's anthropomorphism seems tied to their both being > pragmatists in the sense that understanding God in human terms makes the > concept of God more relatable and meaningful than the abstractions of the > Enlightenment and, in particular, German Idealism. Finally, an > anthropomorphic God is one with whom humans can seemingly have a personal > relationship. > > > Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce scholar > to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an anthropocentrist in > his conception of God]. > > > > That may be so as far as it goes, although stated in a rather hubristic way. > But as I see it there is much more to be said about the character of > Peirce's theism, his un-orthodox Christianity, and his anthropocentrism which > holds that we can have no ideas which are not anthropomorphic. > > > > But for me, perhaps an even more important consideration is that there is > most certainly very much more to inquire into as to how his metaphysics might > be used -- and, indeed, is being used -- to explore metaphysical and > religious positions other than theistic and anthropocentric ones. > > > > As I previously remarked, I do not want to get into religious metaphysical > discussions with Jon, now for several reasons. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 6:14 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List: >> >> Again, self-organization is not self-creation. Nothing comes from nothing. >> >> CSP: I show that logic requires us to postulate of any given phenomenon, >> that it is capable of rational explanation. Now, I say that the co-reality >> of the three universes 1st of Ideas, 2nd of Occurrences (existent things and >> actual events), 3rd of powers to bring two substances into relation to each >> other, (and I will call powers of this sort Reasons) must, accordingly, be >> supposed capable of rational explanation. (R 339:[293r], 1908 Aug 28) >> >> The first sentence is Peirce's version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason >> (PSR), and the second is its application to the three universes (and >> corresponding categories). There is no legitimate "understanding of Peirce" >> in which he treats them as somehow self-generating or otherwise >> inexplicable, especially since he would have considered that to be a >> paradigmatic example of blocking the way of inquiry (CP 1.139, EP 2:49, >> 1898). Instead, he goes on to suggest a rational explanation for them, which >> I have quoted previously. >> >> CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows then >> plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an antecedent >> state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. The task of >> Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from a state >> of absolute absence of any; and logic requires that this problem [is] to be >> solved. But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent state, and >> this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of things >> whatever, that is, an Ens Necessarium. This Ens necessarium being, then, the >> Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator of all that could >> ever be observed of Ideas [1ns], Occurrences [2ns], or Logoi [3ns]. (R >> 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28) >> >> This is Peirce's version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, which >> follows from the PSR. In the state of things logically antecedent to the >> three universes (and corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of >> any phenomena whatsoever, there must have been something else real that >> produced all observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is >> real in every possible state of things (necessary being). He presents this >> as neither a hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible >> hypothesis, and elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. >> >> CSP: I have after long years of the severest examination become fully >> satisfied that, other things being equal, an anthropomorphic conception, >> whether it makes the best nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or >> not, is far more likely to be approximately true than one that is not >> anthropomorphic. ... [A]s between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent >> Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a question >> of which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47n, EP 2:152, 1903) >> >> He even explicitly endorses anthropomorphism in conjunction with theism. >> >> CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in >> particular if it implies theism, I am an anthropomorphist. But the God of my >> theism is not finite. That won't do at all. (CP 8.262, 1905 Jul 23) >> >> By his own abundant and unambiguous testimony, Peirce believed that God as >> Ens necessarium is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP >> 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce >> scholar to claim otherwise. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:54 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Edwina, Jon, Gary, List, >>> >>> an engineer, who makes a machine that replicates and develops >>> automatically, is a worse engineer than one, who creates a situation, where >>> parts self-organize to replicating, self-organizing, self-developing >>> machines. So with the analogy to God, i would say, the less of His actions >>> you can see, the better and more effective His creativity is. If people (as >>> it is the case, I think) cannot see any direct divine action, but can >>> explain more and more with science, His creativity is the best I can think >>> of. But God is not falsifiable, so, according to Popper, not a valid >>> hypothesis. But, differently from other hypotheses, it always will be >>> possible to claim an intelligent (personal) principle behind any >>> phenomenon, how scientifically analysed it ever might be, and it is >>> justified, i think, to call that "God", or "Ens nessecarium". >>> >>> To the term "habit" I think, that this is not the end of inquiry. It just >>> is an anthropomorphic term, extracted from our way of learning. Ok, we see >>> the development of relations, that reminds us of our own habit-formation, >>> in nature, but nature doesn´t work like our brain. >>> >>> To claim pure energy as a starting thing, I am not sure of that, and >>> neither of the big bang. I have read, that astronomers have detected a big >>> galaxy, only 300 million years after the presumed big bang. They call that >>> unlikely. So maybe, an universe, when it becomes too big, calves, like a >>> big soap-bubble that splits. And in every calf-bubble-universe, it looks as >>> if there has been a big bang, but it hasn´t. At least this may be a >>> possibility, so the theory of a primordial pure energy is not the only >>> possible theory. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Helmut >>> 19. August 2024 um 00:59 Uhr >>> >>> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> List, JAS >>> >>> No-one suggests that self-oganization is not ‘without reason’. The reason >>> for the self-organization of a system is to preserve energy by forming it >>> as instances operating within organized habits. [matter is effete mind]... >>> Peirce’s focus onThirdness or ‘Mind’ is quite clear on its function in this >>> manner - and since the categories operate within self-organization, then >>> obviously, Reason is a vital part of a CAS [complex adaptive system]. >>> >>> I disagree that ‘ens necessarium’ - that state of Nothing [which I also >>> call pure energy..not free energy but pure energy] - and which is the >>> ‘absolute absence of phenomena’ [ ie, the absence of the three >>> categories]…is also ‘“the transcendent and eternal ‘author and creator’ . >>> Such an anthropomorphic transformation of the actions of the Categories on >>> pure energy isn’t necessary, in my view. In fact, I consider it a >>> dangerous step - for establishing an agential Author of the universe leads >>> to the institutionalization of this mindset - and we’ve seen the problems >>> in world history with such actions - where belief becomes held within >>> Tenacity and Authority.. >>> >>> In my understanding of Peirce - All that this ens necessarium is, is the >>> primal source of energy-to-become finite. What makes it such? The three >>> categories, which are clearly outlined in 1.412. Again - not God - but >>> the three categories, one of which includes Reason. How does >>> energy-as-matter function within the world? Within the adaptive networking >>> of agapastic integration as operative within the three categories ie, there >>> is no agential plan. >>> >>> What is a fact? It is a unit-of-meaning within Secondness; ie, it is >>> explicit, finite, with testable perimeters. “Facts are hard things which do >>> not consist in my thinking so and so, but stand unmoved by whatever you or >>> I or any man or generations of men may opine about them” 2.173. I don’t >>> think that a belief , an opinion, can be declared as also a FACT. And >>> therefore - I view the definition of ens necessarium as analogous to God - >>> as an opinion, not a fact and is based on a false premiss [ an apriori >>> belief in a god]. >>> >>> JAS - I don’t think you and I are going to get anywhere in this discussion >>> - and don’t see the point of its continuation. You have your way of reading >>> Peirce and I have my way - >>> >>> Edwina >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while >> to repair / update all the links! >> ► 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> 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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
