Gary R, list I see your point, but I continue to disagree. My understanding of Thirdness is not only is it a process of ‘continuum’ but also - of habit formation [ which is what enables a continuum]. But I dont’ see that this Thirdness was operative ‘before the Big Bang’ [or whatever]…
Yes potentiality is essentially general - since it is unable to ‘be’ specific, but, just because it is such, does not, in my view, align it with 3ns. I still view the pre-appearance of the universe [ clumsy wording, I admit]..as Peirce’s ’Nothing’…and that the three categories only came-into-modal-being..together, all at once. So- we’ll have to disagree! But - that’s what discussion permits! Edwina > On Aug 28, 2024, at 2:39 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > Perhaps we'll never see eye to eye on this, but let me at least respond to > your question. > > You asked: "Now- my question is - you seem to consider this continuum as a > mode of Thirdness - even if primal." I do indeed. But keeping with my > resolution to cut down on Peirce quotes, most especially lengthy ones, here > is a single snippet to this point: "Continuity represents Thirdness almost to > perfection" (CP, 6.175, ca. 1907). > > There are numerous places where he associates continuity and the continuum > with 3ns, for example CP. 6.201-3 (ca. 1908) where he argues that the > evolutionary process itself is the result of the principle of continuity and > that process is itself an expression of 3ns. In "The Law of Mind" he says > something to the effect that continuity is the "keystone of the arch of 3ns" > in its application to metaphysics and cosmology (that is obviously not a > direct quote). > > ET: ". . 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. > > I'd agree that they appear -- and even necessarily -- all together "in their > existentiality of being.(emphasis added). That is to say, as they evolve an > existente universe, after what (and only for convenience sake I'll call) the > 'Big Bang'. > > Also note that CP 1.412 (from "A Guess at the Riddle") was written before the > 1898 lecture series, so it's possible that Peirce is still working his > cosmology out in "The First Rule of Logic," well in that and the lecture. But > in the lecture he writes (as you quoted) that "potentiality. . . is > essentially general’ 6.204." Generality and continuity are closely linked in > Peirce's thought, including not only his logic, but also his metaphysical and > cosmological thought, and both represent 3ns, "generality being a kind of > continuity." > > You may also recall that Peirce rejected being called a Tychast and > considered his philosophy most generally as Synechism. So, in the > proto-universe (or whatever one wants to call it), I read the Blackboard > metaphor as meaning that the Blackboard indeed represents a continuum (3ns) > upon which 1ns and 2ns appear (or, are written. [Btw, a theological > interpretation of 'Who's the Scribe?' in the proto-universe is clearly, in my > view, not necessary, although it might well have been Peirce's view as I > think Gary F is implying in his most recent note to Jon). > > Interestingly, Peirce remarks that immediately upon that flash of 1ns a > distinction is made between the blackboard and the line, and that distinction > is categorial 2ns. But there must first be an ur-continuity, a 3ns (the > Blackboard), for 1ns and 2ns to manifest and, yes, then there can be > realized a, shall I say 'second' generality (3ns), namely, habit taking. ET: > " … As you say- 3ns involves 2ns and 2ns involves 1sn… " Yet as Peirce also > insists, 2ns and 3ns cannot be built from 1ns. > > In both the 1898 lecture, and especially in "A Guess at the Riddle," he > argues that a kind of evolution must occur even before there was time. But > that is not at all an existential evolution -- that one that will in time > come in the evolution of an actual universe such as ours; and, yes, then all > three categories will be functioning together. > > Well, I doubt that any of what I've written will have convinced you of my > position regarding the proto-cosmos. Peirce notes in "The Logic of > Mathematics" (my last quotation): > > It will be very difficult for many minds -- and for the very best and > clearest minds, more difficult than for others -- to comprehend the logical > correctness of a view which does not put the assumption of time before either > metaphysics or logic. . . (CP 1.490) > > And in the same paragraph he suggests that a related difficulty is in seeing > 3ns as first logically and, as I've been arguing, metaphysically. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:27 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> 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] >>> <mailto:[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 <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.
