Gary R, List Thanks for the outline. I’ve a few questions/comments
1] I tend to read Peirce’s 1.412 outline of the origin of the universe as a process of all three categories emerging - with none of them primal or primary. They emerge ‘out of the womb of indeterminacy’ 1.412. or ’the original vague potentiality 6.203. …where the blackboard is a continuum’ Now- my question is - you seem to consider this continuum as a mode of Thirdness - even if primal.. And, yes, Peirce points out that this ‘habit as a generalizing tendency’…must have its origin in the original continuity which is inherent in potentiality. Continuity, aa generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general’ 6.204. BUT - my point is that ALL THREE Modes are necessarily operating within this emergence of the universe. There isn’t any linear first…in their existentiality of being. As you say- 3ns involves 2ns and 2ns involves 1sn….. And yes - this does indeed means that there is no ‘ens necessarium’ Edwina > On Aug 28, 2024, at 3:42 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > I would like to preface these comments by remarking that, and especially over > the past year or so, I have received more than a few off List emails saying > that some participants here, as one person put it "seem to be deeply > habituated to pushing Peircean plug-in quotes buttons to outdo each other > [and that these] same people [seem] more interested in Peircean Correctness > than open discussion." As I myself no doubt have been guilty of at least > overdoing the Peirce quotes in some of my posts, I've decided to begin a > practice of strictly limiting such quotations in this and in all future > messages, and in this case to only one. And I would most certainly encourage > more "open discussion: in the forum. > > I think that I perhaps have a somewhat different understanding of the origins > of the categories and the universe than others on the List. I don't know if > it is possible to reconcile those different views, but I will at least > attempt taking a stab at it here and, perhaps, in future posts on the topic. > > I base my understanding of the origin of the categories and the cosmos > principally on the Blackboard metaphor in the lecture titled, "The First Rule > of Logic" in Peirce's 1898 Cambridge Conference Lecture series, [pages]. A > relevant excerpt from it is here: CP 6.203. > > I read the Blackboard metaphor as meaning something along these lines: > > Before the existence of time and the universe as we know it, there was a > state of vague potentiality, a boundless, undefined continuum. The Blackboard > represents this primal continuum. I have previously referred to this as a > kind ur-continuum (so, primal 3ns before the universe and its form of 3ns > were). > > All that we consider 1nses (all the Platonic ideas) are there only > potentially, not yet having been realized as any particular character. 1ns > may be necessary in order for there eventually to be a universe, but it's > 'expression' is, at this stage of the origin, but pure potential (Of course, > all this 'occurs' before there is time in this universe, even as the language > here quasi-necessarily employs temporal terms such as 'occurs' 'first', > 'then', 'eventually', etc., ). > This primal continuity, with all its potentiality, is akin to a clean > blackboard, and represents a state of infinite possibilities without distinct > points or dimensions, where 'everything' (every character and every > determination) is but pure potential. The blackboard represents this > ur-continuum as encompassing an indefinite number of dimensions. In this > primordial state, nothing is yet determined. > > To begin the process of defining his potential, a "line" appears (in this > lecture Peirce has himself writing on the blackboard, while I'll frame the > metaphor more generally). This represents a discontinuous proto-event > introducing a contrast or distinction within the continuum. This brute > occurrence represents the first appearance of 2ns. > > But the line may not 'stabilize', may not 'stay' on the Blackboard (it can > instantaneously be 'erased', disappear). So its appearance represents only > the first step toward the emergence of a definiteness, a particular character > (that only should it 'hold'). For only when it stays on the Blackboard does > it represent a Platonic idea, i.e., a character. But if it does, it is > itself a kind of continuity, for it is derived from the underlying general > potentiality. Peirce writes that the continuity of the Blackboard makes > everything appearing on it also continuous. > > The chalk line on the blackboard represents a boundary between two > contrasting surfaces: one black, one white. This boundary represents a kind > of interaction between these two continuous surfaces, signifying the > 'pairedness' between contrasting 'elements', the white surface representing > 1ns, the boundary between black and white representing the relationship > between 1ns and 3ns. So 2ns appears in the passage through this pairedness of > contrasting elements, that is, in their 'defining' each other. > > Now, when a particular character gains stability and consistency ('stays' on > the Blackboard), a 'habit' is established. As more lines appear, they create > new forms and patterns, symbolizing new habits and tendencies emerging from > initial chance occurrences (again, out of what Peirce calls elsewhere a > Platonic world of ideas). Some of these habits (perhaps, better, > 'proto-habits') eventually gain stability and consistency. But, again, I want > to emphasize that this process of habit formation is rooted in the original > continuity which is inherently general and continuous. As stated above, this > pre-temporal state can be imagined as a "before" that is not bound by our > usual understanding of time. > > Space and time and matter and evolutionary logic -- that is to say, a > universe -- emerges from the interaction of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. (As I've > occasionally noted in the past, I am not a big fan of the Big Bang theory -- > actually, theories.) > > Peirce elsewhere argues as if 1ns arises 'first'. But this is not the case > in the Cambridge lecture under consideration where the ur-continuity is the > locus of the emergence of 1nses, literally the locus of every specific > character and every thing which will exist in some universe. Is that > ur-continuity Nothing? Well, as has been repeatedly noted in these > discussions, if it is, it is the nothing of pure potential (and not, as > Peirce contrasts it with, the 'nothing' of negation). > > I'll conclude with but one quotation which I hope might help both reconcile > two seemingly different views ( being,1ns 1st v 3ns 1st) as well Peirce's use > of the expression "Platonic ideas" (for it is fairly certainly that he was > much less a Platonist than an Aristotilian). > > In short, if we are going to regard the universe as a result of evolution at > all, we must think that not merely the existing universe, that locus in the > cosmos to which our reactions are limited, but the whole Platonic world, > which in itself is equally real, is evolutionary in its origin, too. And > among the things so resulting are time and logic. > > The very first and most fundamental element that we have to assume is a > Freedom, or Chance, or Spontaneity, by virtue of which the general vague > nothing-in-particular-ness that preceded the chaos took a thousand definite > qualities. The second element we have to assume is that there could be > accidental reactions between those qualities. The qualities themselves are > mere eternal possibilities. But these reactions we must think of as events. > Not that Time was. But still, they had all the here-and-nowness of events. CP > 6.200 > > In such a manner "the general vague nothing-in-particular-ness" becomes every > quality, every relationship, everything that exists and evolves in some > possible universe, even such an actual universe as ours (but leaving room, I > think, for hypotheses regarding other possible worlds). > > In our universe 3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns involves 1ns. This is to > suggest that the involutional evolution of our universe seemingly took a > categorial vectorial path different from that of the categories 'before time > was'. > > And none of this, as Gary Furhman just well argued, requires an Ens > Necessarium. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Helmut, List >> >> Comments on your questions,, >> >> 1] Yes, my reading of Peirce is that the term of ‘God’ means Reason, >> Reasoning, Logic, Mind. See 6.218 ’there is no principle of action in the >> universe but reason’….but, this reasoning is not deductive but also >> inductive and abdutive, ie, open. This is the result of, as you note, that >> ALL THREE Categories were existent from the beginning. >> >> Therefore reasoning or logic is necessary - since it enables continuity and >> the formation of habits of generality..Without habits - what would result? >> That is - a universe operative only in Firstness and/or Secondness - would >> result in: Entropy. >> >> What is meant by the term of ‘god’? In In 8.211-212, he compares it with >> ’Nature’ - andNature is an evolving, rational expression of Mind as >> Matter.The concept that ‘Matter is effete Mind’ [6.25] is basic to Peirce’s >> objective idealism [6.24]; Note that 6.268 ‘where all mind partakes of the >> nature of matter’..and so on. See an extensive analysis; 6.277. >> >> In 6.502, Peirce uses the analogy of “a mind’ for the meaning of ‘god’. I >> have no problem with such an analogy - and reject the anthropomorphic images >> [again, I’m an atheist so….]…and reject the concept of god as causal. Again, >> I consider Peirce’s insistence that all three categories emerged together - >> to be a key infrastructure in his concept of the role of reason in the >> operation of the universe. . >> >> And Peirce’s outline of nothing [see 1.412 and 6.217 is not the ’nothing of >> negation [6.217…”There is no individual thing, no compulsion outward nor >> inward, no law”…andn “nothing necessarily resulted [6.218\. >> >> 3. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘capitalism’. My understanding of the term >> is that it means that the actions of the Investment and Production of goods >> and services are in the control of the individual, the private individual. >> Rather than the collective or State. >> >> The benefits of capitalism is that this enables diversity and novelty of >> innovation [ which can only be done by free-thinking, curious individuals]; >> it enables an economy whose goods and services are linked to local realities >> [ local environment of land and plants/animals, local needs, …rather than >> top-down one-style fits all ]. It enables multiple sites of production - and >> - importantly, if one individual’s enterprise fails - only he fails - not >> the whole collective. The emergence of capitalism in the 15th 16th century >> and the concomitant development of the middle class enabled an explosion of >> population growth in Europe - and a concomitant increase in health and >> well-being - and - eventually, a need to expand to the ’new world’ because >> of this population growth [ see Braudel F, histories]. >> >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >>> On Aug 27, 2024, at 2:40 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> An: "Gary Richmond" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was not >>> anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[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 <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 <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.
