Supplement: About the Spencer-Brown thing: As I said, I haven´t understood it, but to me it seems like that: In this case we have the Peano axiom about integers, that they form a sequence, or something like that, and the logical axiom of the excluded middle, so "Not" being real. About both we are tempted to ask, why talk about these obvious matters. But if you try to explain one axiom (the sequence of the integers) with another axiom ("Not", distinction, excluded middle), then this may be possible, but is very complicated. So maybe, most of what we regard for common sense and easy, is in fact extremely complex matters, but not for us, because we are extremely complex- in the same way- creatures, functioning intuitively in this complexity, and, on the other hand, unable to see real triviality. Just my hunch, or my wishful thinking: Wouldn´t it be great, if the beautiful, complicated things, we all want, but don´t achieve, were in fact trivial, and the easy-seeming, boring, nasty, everyday- matters were in fact so terribly complex, that we could agree to postpone them to never. Or I just am having a regressive hippie-seizure, appearing from my far juvenile past, triggered by my half-baked philosophy.
Edwina, List,
Can be examined doesn´t mean can be explained, I think. What can´t be explained is e.g. the axioms. They neither can be verified nor falsified. Like God. I just have googled them, it´s not only the five axioms of algebra, but there are also axioms of integers (Peano), communication (Watzlawick), and many more. The Peircean categories, I think, base on the integer numbers 1,2,3. To us these natural numbers seem absolutely common sense and easy to understand, but Spencer-Brown has explained them in a for me very complicated and not understandable way, starting with the concept of "distinction" (meaning something like the Boolean "Not"), and a calculus, that is similar to Peirce´s entitative graphs. I too am against magical thinking, tenacity, and authority. "A priori" I don´t know: I think, that Peirce´s "a priori" is different from Kant´s, though Peirce has read Kant quite closely, I think, so I wonder, is that so, and if, why.
Best, Helmut
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, HelmutList, JASAnd 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_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 11:11 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:ListI 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 and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
