My answer is equally speculative. As Peirce notes - the universe rests on continuity [6.202] - which, to me, basically means that the universe is geared to preventingenropic dissipation ‘of itself’. And that both "Firstness or chance and Secondness or Brute reaction’ are necessary elements which Thirdness acts upon.
Was there anything that ‘preceded the universe? According to Peirce’s view [1.412] there was Nothing. - a state of mere indeterminacy in which nothing existed or really happened” 1.411]. I would die an analogy of it as ‘pure [not free] energy. The clean blackboard is an image of this Nothing; “the original vague potentiality - it has no dimensions, no points. That is, it is spatial and atemporal. Then,Peirce’s analogy is that He draws a chalk line - but- he defines it as ‘A Firstness, a springing up of something new’ [6.203]. In 1.412 - he calls this first existeniality a ‘flash’. ..which I would assume is a flashof discrete matter. My understanding of this first flash is that it is self-generated. But essentially what has happened is the emergence of space and time - and with this Firstness/ this flash..also emerges the modal reality of Secondness [ since, with space and time, otherness is existent..and Thirdness, which enables networking between these marks/instances…andn the development of common habits among them. I don’t ’see’ that a blank slate or ‘ur-continuum has any existentially - how could it, even as itself, exist without also the three categories, which are basic modes of being to all existence?those are my ‘mutterings of the day - and would require more thought! Edwina/ > On Aug 28, 2024, at 5:53 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, > > I rather thought -- assumed really -- that we'd have to agree to disagree on > this. After all, while even Big Bang Theory seems to me to be more > conjectural with each cosmological reorientation which the James telescope > (for example) has been stimulating, the character of that which 'preceded' > our universe is, well, rather entirely conjectural. > > But I would be interested in your taking a shot at answering this question. > You wrote: ". . .the three categories only came-into-modal-being..together, > all at once. " How do you think that happened? Saying for example,"out of > nothing," seems to me to a non-answer. How might such a categorial complexus > arise? Why should there be out of time little 'flashes' of 1ns, let alone > complexes of 1nses and 2nses forming habits (3ns), without there being some > sort of "blank canvas" or "blank slate" (the ur-continuum which the > Blackboard metaphor represents) for these to appear upon (and then together > work to create an actual cosmos!) Thus, I will for now stay with that later > Blackboard analogy as it seems to me to be a development of Peirce's > cosmological thinking just the year before and that which you > characteristically refer to (much less frequently that of the 1898 lectures). > I will give you the last word and call it a day on this topic. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 4:43 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> 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] >>> <mailto:[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.
