List,
as I said, I find the term "habit" at least as due to investigating its anthropomorphicity. The term "nothing" though I don´t see for anthropomorphic at all. (Sorry for my bad English, maybe I confuese "to" with "as" and "for"). Anyways, when we speak of "nothing" in a theological context, it becomes complex, I think:
1-- Is God logic/word, like John wrote (Bible) at the beginning of his gospel?
2 -- Or does God have to, like all creatures and all inanimate nature, obey to logic, because logic is absolutely inevitable, and the one primary ens nessecitarium? I think that is e.g. the position of Omri Boehm, in whose view ethics too derive from logic, as I think to have understood).
I´m am against Hegel, but must admit, that he wrote a fine description, how everything evolved from nothing. BUT: I agree with Edwina (if i understood right), that this is not an evolution, as all three categories must have been there from the start.
Well, I am sort of an agnostic, somewhere between panentheism and theism. I guess, even between theists, there are different ways to define the concept "God". And certainly the concept "nothing": Might well be, that it merely exist for concept in capitalism? (Sorry for that, Edwina, but I just felt like this). I just wanted to say, that maybe point 2 is true, and in that case, maybe there never has been "nothing". I think, the buddhist say so, I am not a buddhist, but this their point is worth of taking it into the discourse as possibility (type due to not knowing).
But with Anselm of Canterbury, we might say, that if we can imagine "nothing", there must be, or have been, nothing. But I would doubt that we can imagine nothing (besides of being broke). It is a nonsentic term. Maybe.
Best regards, Helmut
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2024 um 03:50 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
An: "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was not anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
An: "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was not anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium
Gary, R, List
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’ .
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].
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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..
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 1906-7Best,Gary ROn Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 6:14 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:54 AM Helmut Raulien <[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,Helmut19. August 2024 um 00:59 Uhr
List, JASNo-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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
