Helmut, List You are asking me, if I understand you, why I don’t call what Peirce calls the Three Categories by the term of ‘god’? Hmm.
I think it’s because the term of ‘god’ has been given so many meanings, which meanings move its actions to the ‘unnatural’, to the magical, and above all, to the incapable of being scientifically examined. After all, I am claiming that all three of Peirce’s categories [as wells the semiosic triad]; as wells the emergence from Nothing, can be examined using the scientific method. That is, one doesn’t have to use the methods of tenacity, authority or a priori to accept their validity and truth. Edwina > On Sep 6, 2024, at 3:12 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon, List, > > Edwina, you wrote: "but I certainly don’t reject the formative authority of > the generals of 3ns, or the productive results of chance, or the immediate > effects of reaction". > > My question is, why not call that "God". Funny is, that both an atheist, and > a believer in God (pan-, or panen-, or theist), may attempt to refute the > opposing belief with the accusation of anthropomorphism: An atheist may say, > that to call these generals/ results/ effects a person (as God is a person) > is anthropomorphic, and a believer may say, that to save the term "person" > for humans and humanlike entities is anthropomorphic. > > Well, but maybe the term "believer" is false, it doesn´t strike me as a > matter of belief, but merely as a quibble about terms: Whether the term > "person" and thus the term "God" is justified or not. "Belief", I think, > matters only between pan-, panen- and theism. > > What I find astonishing is, that the evangelist John´s identification of God > with logic/word has been tolerated by the editors of the bible, although it > is, I don´t know, pantheism or panentheism, but surely not theism, I´d say. > > Best regards, Helmut > > , 06. September 2024 um 01:20 Uhr > Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > > List, JAS > > And I continue to disagree with you, JAS, that the key point of this > discussion is NOT how YOU understand Peirce’s outline of the emergence of the > universe; and its operative functioning, nor the use of the term ‘god’ - but > how each one of us understands Peirce’s outline of the above. And - I > disagree with your interpretation which is a classic theist one. And I find > my explanation to be well documented in Peirce’s writings. I’m not going to > repeat the quotations or paragraphs since I’ve already given them in previous > posts. > > I think it’s very important to understand, also, that a belief in any ‘ism’ - > such as theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism and atheism - are beliefs . Not > facts. And therefore - are held by any one of the three ‘fixations of belief’ > - authority, tenacity, a priori- but most certainly, are not open to the > scientific method. > > That includes Peirce’s outline of the emergence of the universe from Nothing, > of the emergence of the three modal organizing principles of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, > of the functioning of the triadic semiosic process; of the role of > Mind-as-Matter….etc. All of this - can be found in Peirce’s writings. > > The question then turns to one where one must ask: Can Peirce’s outline of > the ermgence of the universe from nothing, of the reality of the modal > actions of chance, creation andn continuity - can these be examined > scientifically? I think : Yes.. Can the triadic process be examined > scientifically? Yes. What about Mind-as-Matter? I think- yes. I think the > advances in quantum physics, in biology and in complex adaptive systems are > areas where these Peircean explanations can logically and functionally be > used. > > JAS - Can your understanding of God - which I do not find in Peirce - be > examined scientifically? I don’t think so, and therefore - I feel it is your > belief - and I stay out of such discussion. I only comment when I feel that > you insist that YOUR interpretation of Peirce leads you to declare that your > interpretation is the only correct one. > > As for ‘atheism’ - and Peirce’s definition it as nominalism, I would agree > with him that in most cases, atheism is indeed nominalist in that it rejects > the reality of generals.. But- my atheism - merely rejects an agential a > priori metaphysical authority [ defined as god] but I certainly don’t reject > the formative authority of the generals of 3ns, or the productive results of > chance, or the immediate effects of reaction. So- trying to equate that > nominalist definition of atheism with mine- [why did you do this?]..doesn’t > work. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2024, at 6:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > List: > > On the contrary, the key point in this discussion is to acknowledge that > Peirce does not "define 'god' as [merely] Mind" nor "the universe as a vast > self-organized process of Mind." Instead, he explicitly defines "God" as Ens > necessarium, "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, > EP 2:434, 1908); "that which would Really be in any possible state of things > whatever ... 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); > "Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all three Universes of > experience. I do not mean, then, a 'soul of the World' or an intelligence is > 'immanent' in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of > matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them" (R 843, 1908). > He also considers his "Neglected Argument" to be quite conclusive for > establishing the reality of God (so defined). > > CSP: As for ... the presupposition of God’s Reality, most of the usually > current Arguments in its favour are Logically Valid, as Probable Arguments, > however weak some of them are; and the host of Nominalists who deny this are, > upon this and much else, led far astray from sound Logic, chiefly by their > false Metaphysics. The most powerful of the proofs of His Being is that the > sincere inquirer, (who will first have been freed from Nominalism, so as no > longer to confound the assertion of God’s Reality, with the proposition that > God Exists, since this, being a contradiction in terminis, will not receive > five minutes’ consideration from any clear-headed person,)--if he meditates > well upon God’s Reality considered as a mere hypothesis,--and until he has > done this, he is unfit to judge of it,--will, as a fact, find himself utterly > incapable of doubting it, which is more than a Proof of it to him;--it is a > Rational Compulsion. (SWS:282-283, 1909 Nov 7) > > Even more controversially, he goes on to assert that "all Atheists are > Nominalists" and then states, "It may, therefore, truly be said that each of > us believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely" > (SWS:283). Anyone may certainly disagree with Peirce on these matters--after > all, he would be the first to insist that his beliefs were entirely fallible, > just like everyone else's--but no one can credibly ascribe contradictory > views to him, e.g., by claiming to have a different "reading" of his own > words. Of course, I happen to agree with Peirce that "logic requires us to > postulate of any given phenomenon, that it is capable of rational > explanation," including "the co-reality of the three universes" that > encompass "all the phenomena there are" (R 339:[293r&295r], 1908 Aug 28), > instead of treating them as somehow coming into being on their own from > absolutely nothing (self-creation) or otherwise inexplicable. > > 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 Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 11:11 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List >> >> I think the key point in this discussion is to acknowledge that a belief in >> theism [ and its various types] or atheism, or pantheism or panentheism, >> remains, always - a belief. That is, it is, as a conclusion about the world, >> outside the realm of fallibility, of empirical evidence, …and remains, >> therefore, strictly an intellectual construct. >> >> One can set up logical arguments and so on - all the cosmological, >> ontological, design, causal and so on - but, it remains, always: a belief. >> Which means - you either believe it or you don’t. Logical arguments may be >> valid in their format, but if their premises are unsound and fallacious, >> then..the argument no matter how logical- is empty! >> >> Therefore - I’m not sure that one can conclude that any belief is ‘better >> than’ another. The key problem occurs when the individual belief is moved >> into a communal requirement - ie - when it becomes politicized and remade >> as, not a belief, but a FACT!. And becomes a social requirement! We see this >> in all fundamentalisms - whether it be the medieval Christian Church with >> its vicious heresies or Islam, with its equally vicious attacks on infidels. >> >> I consider that Peirce defines ‘god’ as Mind’, and the universe as a vast >> self-organized process of Mind, within the operation of the three categories >> and the semiosic triad. I’m not going to fill this post with quotations - >> since this analysis is, I feel, found all throughout Peirce’s work. Others >> may disagree - but again - I stress that any belief in God - and above all - >> a definition and description of the attributes of god - has to be, not fact, >> but belief…and therefore, beyond conclusive argument. It remains, always, a >> discussion….perhaps..an ‘endless discussion’..since there cannot be a single >> conclusion. >> >> 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] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <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] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
