List - I wish this computer would allow me to do the writing and stop changing my terms!
The clean blackboard is Aspatial and Atemporal. [not spatial and atemporal]….Again, I find the 1.412 outline a very compelling argument - more so, frankly, than the blackboard! > On Aug 28, 2024, at 6:42 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
