subject:"\[PEIRCE\-L\] A comment"

Edwina, List:

Again, I spell out my interpretation of Peirce's mature cosmology in my
paper, "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality
of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187), including how I
understand the earlier passages in light of the later ones. Thanks again
for "repeatedly challenging me to sharpen my thinking and argumentation"
back when I was writing it, as I acknowledge in the last endnote.

Only one claim of mine is really at issue here--Peirce believed, at least
toward the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real
and transcendent creator of the universe. Far from relying on only one
excerpt or only one article, I have provided *numerous *exact quotations
from various writings over the last couple of days where he *explicitly
affirms *this. Unless someone can provide an exact quotation where he
*explicitly
denies* it, I rest my case.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 11:43 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> 1] Then - how do you reconcile Peirce's extensive non-theistic writings,
> about cosmology, about Mind and Matter, which are to be found throughout
> his entire life - including after 1900 - with your insistence that one
> should only consider this one article as definitive of his thought? How do
> you reconcile the two - which are conceptual opposites?
>
> 2] How do you reconcile the notion of a ' strictly hypothetical God'' with
> objective 'Reality' which doesn't operate only within the vagueness of the
> human hypothetical.
>
> 3] And how do you define the NA Argument - which as Jon Awbrey points out,
> is an abductive hypothesis, with science? The scientific method requires
> empirical evidence. As differentiated from the 'method of tenacity, a
> priori and authority, the scientific method requires evidence - objective
> evidence as well as reasoning. Positing a hypothesis is not a complete
> scientific method - it's merely the first step, and therefore, remains a
> hypothesis and not a conclusion.
>
> And again - how do you reconcile this hypothesis which hasn't reached a
> scientific conclusion - with the rest of his lifetime of writing about
> Mind, Cosmology etc - which rests on an analytic framework that does not
> operate with a transcendental god
>
> Edwina
>
> On Sat 11/09/21 12:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: My goodness - why challenge the List to 'prove Edwina wrong'?
>
>
> Gary R. did no such thing. He simply asked if anyone else on the List
> agrees with the extraordinary claim, in light of the numerous exact
> quotations from various writings that I have provided over the last
> couple of days, that Peirce did not believe, at least toward the end of
> his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
> creator of the universe. As John Sowa rightly said, "For any claims about
> what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations."
>
> Personally, I would welcome any substantive attempt to prove me wrong,
> about this or anything else. Like Peirce, I "would incomparably rather
> undergo the mortification and substantial loss of credit attaching to
> having been proved a blunderer, rather than that anybody should be deceived
> by any fallacious argument" (R 320:30[28], 1907). It seems to me that this
> is the proper attitude of any sincere inquirer who is genuinely seeking the
> truth.
>
> ET: I consider that Peirce's outline in the NA article is a religious
> opinion ... not scientific.
>
>
> Peirce plainly says otherwise (bold added).
>
> CSP: [A]ny normal man who considers the three Universes in the light of
> the hypothesis of God's Reality, and pursues that line of reflection in 
> scientific
> singleness of heart, will come to be stirred to the depths of his nature
> by the beauty of the idea and by its august practicality, even to the point
> of earnestly loving and adoring his strictly hypothetical God, and to that
> of desiring above all things to shape the whole conduct of life and all the
> springs of action into conformity with that hypothesis. (CP 6.467, EP 2:440)
>
> CSP: [T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in
> a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie
> in its value in the self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life. (CP
> 6.480, EP 2:446)
>
> CSP: The third argument, enclosing and defending the other two, consists
> in the development of those principles of logic according to which the
> humble argument is the first stage of a scientific inquiry into the
> origin of the three Universes, but of an inquiry which produces, not merely 
> scientific
> belief, which is always provisional, but also a living, practical belief,
> logically justified in crossing the Rubicon with all the freightage of
> eternity. (CP 6.485, EP 2:449)
>
>
> According to Peirce, his "Neglected Argument" is part of "a scientific
> inquiry," and its "normal" result when

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, Edwina, List:

I spell out my interpretation of Peirce's mature cosmology in my paper, "A
Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" (
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187). Here is my summary (pp.
13-14).

God as *Ens necessarium*, eternal pure mind, creative of thought (third
Universe), imagines an inexhaustible continuum of real possibilities and
their combinations (first Universe), and exercises perfect freedom in
choosing which of these to actualize (second Universe). This is the *hierarchy
of Being* in terms of Peirce's three Categories (3ns→1ns→2ns). The *sequence
of events* in each case consists of spontaneity followed by reaction and
then habit-taking (1ns→2ns→3ns). The *evolution of states* within our
existing universe (CP 1.409, EP 1.277; 1887-1888) is from complete chaos in
the infinite past, through this ongoing process at any assignable date, to
complete regularity in the infinite future (1ns→3ns→2ns).

Of course, in accordance with Peirce's synechism and objective idealism,
mind is not confined to any one of the three categories. Moreover, we have
had List discussions in the past about how the three divine persons of the
Trinity in Christian theology might correspond to them, and Andrew Robinson
has written extensively on that topic.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 8:38 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Phyllis, List
>
> My problem with defining 'God as firstness' is that Peirce referred to God
> as Mind, which is more operative as Thirdness.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Sat 11/09/21 12:00 AM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Yes. Peirce was a theist. I think he was very abstract (God as firstness)
> despite the definitions, which are pretty traditional.
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-11 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

1] Then - how do you reconcile Peirce's extensive non-theistic
writings, about cosmology, about Mind and Matter, which are to be
found throughout his entire life - including after 1900 - with your
insistence that one should only consider this one article as
definitive of his thought? How do you reconcile the two - which are
conceptual opposites?

2] How do you reconcile the notion of a ' strictly hypothetical
God'' with objective 'Reality' which doesn't operate only within the
vagueness of the human hypothetical.

3] And how do you define the NA Argument - which as Jon Awbrey
points out, is an abductive hypothesis, with science? The scientific
method requires empirical evidence. As differentiated from the
'method of tenacity, a priori and authority, the scientific method
requires evidence - objective evidence as well as reasoning. Positing
a hypothesis is not a complete scientific method - it's merely the
first step, and therefore, remains a hypothesis and not a conclusion.

And again - how do you reconcile this hypothesis which hasn't
reached a scientific conclusion - with the rest of his lifetime of
writing about Mind, Cosmology etc - which rests on an analytic
framework that does not operate with a transcendental god

Edwina
 On Sat 11/09/21 12:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: My goodness - why challenge the List to 'prove Edwina wrong'?
 Gary R. did no such thing. He simply asked if anyone else on the
List agrees with the extraordinary claim, in light of the numerous
exact quotations from various writings that I have provided over the
last couple of days, that Peirce  did not believe, at least toward
the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real
and transcendent creator of the universe. As John Sowa rightly said,
"For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact
quotations."
 Personally, I would welcome any substantive attempt to prove me
wrong, about this or anything else. Like Peirce, I "would
incomparably rather undergo the mortification and substantial loss of
credit attaching to having been proved a blunderer, rather than that
anybody should be deceived by any fallacious argument" (R 320:30[28],
1907). It seems to me that this is the proper attitude of any sincere
inquirer who is genuinely seeking the truth. 
 ET: I consider that Peirce's outline in the NA article is a
religious opinion ... not scientific.
 Peirce plainly says otherwise (bold added).
 CSP: [A]ny normal man who considers the three Universes in the light
of the hypothesis of God's Reality, and pursues that line of
reflection in  scientific singleness of heart, will come to be
stirred to the depths of his nature by the beauty of the idea and by
its august practicality, even to the point of earnestly loving and
adoring his strictly hypothetical God, and to that of desiring above
all things to shape the whole conduct of life and all the springs of
action into conformity with that hypothesis. (CP 6.467, EP 2:440)
  CSP: [T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific inquiry,
resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility, whose
ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled growth of
man's conduct of life. (CP 6.480, EP 2:446)
 CSP: The third argument, enclosing and defending the other two,
consists in the development of those principles of logic according to
which the humble argument is the first stage of a  scientific inquiry
into the origin of the three Universes, but of an inquiry which
produces, not merely scientific belief, which is always provisional,
but also a living, practical belief, logically justified in crossing
the Rubicon with all the freightage of eternity. (CP 6.485, EP 2:449)
 According to Peirce, his "Neglected Argument" is part of "a
scientific inquiry," and its "normal" result when pursued "in
scientific singleness of heart" is  both a "scientific belief" and "a
living, practical belief" that he himself professes in the article's
very first sentence--namely, that God as Ens necessarium is "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.453, EP 2:434).
He also states in a manuscript draft, "By the proper name God, I
shall refer to that Being who possesses those Attributes which I take
to be most essential to the traditional notion" (R 843:25[3]), and he
proceeds to list several of them. 
 Hence, my summary is accurate--Peirce believed, at least toward the
end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and
transcendent creator of the universe. Anyone is free to disagree with
him about this, but not to ascribe a different view to him.
 Regards,
 Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
 On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 8:11 AM Edwina Taborsky

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: My goodness - why challenge the List to 'prove Edwina wrong'?

Gary R. did no such thing. He simply asked if anyone else on the List
agrees with the *extraordinary *claim, in light of the *numerous *exact
quotations from *various *writings that I have provided over the last
couple of days, that Peirce *did not* believe, at least toward the end of
his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
creator of the universe. As John Sowa rightly said, "For any claims about
what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations."

Personally, I would welcome any *substantive *attempt to prove me wrong,
about this or anything else. Like Peirce, I "would incomparably rather
undergo the mortification and substantial loss of credit attaching to
having been proved a blunderer, rather than that anybody should be deceived
by any fallacious argument" (R 320:30[28], 1907). It seems to me that this
is the proper attitude of any sincere inquirer who is genuinely seeking the
truth.

ET: I consider that Peirce's outline in the NA article is a religious
opinion ... not scientific.

Peirce plainly says otherwise (bold added).

CSP: [A]ny normal man who considers the three Universes in the light of the
hypothesis of God's Reality, and pursues that line of reflection in *scientific
*singleness of heart, will come to be stirred to the depths of his nature
by the beauty of the idea and by its august practicality, even to the point
of earnestly loving and adoring his strictly hypothetical God, and to that
of desiring above all things to shape the whole conduct of life and all the
springs of action into conformity with that hypothesis. (CP 6.467, EP 2:440)

CSP: [T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a *scientific *inquiry, resulting in
a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie
in its value in the self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life. (CP
6.480, EP 2:446)

CSP: The third argument, enclosing and defending the other two, consists in
the development of those principles of logic according to which the humble
argument is the first stage of a *scientific *inquiry into the origin of
the three Universes, but of an inquiry which produces, not merely *scientific
*belief, which is always provisional, but also a living, practical belief,
logically justified in crossing the Rubicon with all the freightage of
eternity. (CP 6.485, EP 2:449)

According to Peirce, his "Neglected Argument" is part of "a scientific
inquiry," and its "normal" result when pursued "in scientific singleness of
heart" is *both *a "scientific belief" *and *"a living, practical belief"
that he himself professes in the article's very first sentence--namely,
that God as *Ens necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience" (CP 6.453, EP 2:434). He also states in a manuscript draft, "By
the proper name God, I shall refer to that Being who possesses those
Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional notion" (R
843:25[3]), and he proceeds to list several of them.

Hence, my summary is accurate--Peirce believed, at least toward the end of
his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
creator of the universe. Anyone is free to disagree with him about this,
but not to ascribe a different view to him.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 8:11 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R, list
>
> My goodness - why challenge the List to 'prove Edwina wrong'?
>
> I claim that Peirce's whole work is not theistic - I don't use just one
> article - and I included quotations from his later years, to show that
> scientifically and logically - Peirce was not a theist 'in the traditional
> sense'  [a 'real and transcendent creator of the universe]. and was
> instead, outlining a self-organized logical, rational, networked,
> agapastically interactive Universe. All of those analyses,
> in extensive outlines,  can be found throughout his work. Hardly something
> that he would abandon in one article.
>
> I have also pointed out the difference between science and religion - and
> I consider that the two have little in common. Religion functions within
> the emotions and the community.  I consider that Peirce's outline in the NA
> article is a religious opinion - though I do like Jon Awbrey's suggestion
> of it as an abductive argument, a 'Holy Guess'..i.e, an opinion and not
> scientific.
>
> I also question why the Appeal-to-Majority' by you should be considered
> definitive?
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 10/09/21 11:17 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Jon, List,
>
> Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not simply
> admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least toward the
> end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and
>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

John, List:

JFS: For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact
quotations.


What an excellent methodological suggestion! If only it had occurred to me
to do that all along! Surely no one would dispute claims about what Peirce
believed that are explicitly confirmed by his own words in multiple exact
quotations. From now on, I will provide relevant excerpts from his writings
to support my interpretations of his thought. Surely no one would complain
about the consistent implementation of such an approach.

Thanks,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:53 PM sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:

> Jon AS,List,
>
> The "musings" in the NA are so vague that they don't imply anything more
> than the existence of something that affects the ways of thinking of all or
> nearly all populations around the world.  Whatever they call it, it's a
> very important Ens necessarium,.  Beyond that, the NA doesn't say anything
> specific.  Whatever commonalities may occur among the beliefs of the
> nations along the Silk Road can be attributed to wandering gurus.
>
> JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with
> God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
> Testament.
>
> JAS: On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the
> New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
> "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
> (1 John 4:8&16).I
>
> Since the words 'spirit', 'light', and 'love' have very different
> definitions in Greek and other languages, the word 'is' cannot be
> interpreted as equality.  It' s unclear how John intended those sentences
> to be interpreted.  The fact that Peirce happened to mention his fondness
> for John's gospel does not provide any evidence for how he interpreted any
> parts of it.
>
> For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations.
>
> John
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-11 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Phyllis, List

My problem with defining 'God as firstness' is that Peirce referred
to God as Mind, which is more operative as Thirdness. 

Edwina
 On Sat 11/09/21 12:00 AM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 Yes. Peirce was a theist. I think he was very abstract (God as
firstness) despite the definitions, which are pretty traditional. 
 On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:18 PM Gary Richmond  wrote:
  Jon, List,
 Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not
simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least
toward the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the
real and transcendent creator of the universe?" 
 Who would deny (except, obviously, Edwina) not so much that you have
argued your position admirably well (which I believe you have), but
that it has been through an abundance of textual support that there
can be no serious substantive argument refuting that "at least toward
the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and
transcendent creator of the universe"? I think that your "at least"
here is actually quite intellectually generous.  
 So I am genuinely interested and do ask the List: are there other
members of this forum who would deny that Peirce meant what he wrote
when, for but one famous example from 1908 now oft repeated here,
that this was his belief: "THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we
Americans say), is the definable proper name, signifying Ens
necessarium; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience"? That is, who else here would deny that Peirce believed
in a creator God? 
 So far -- but I'm willing to be proved wrong -- it seems to me that
Edwina simply refuses to account for or accept anything (notably,
Peirce's own words) that conflicts with her apparently settled view
of the matter, arguing that Peirce was not a theist? 
  No doubt one could argue, as I suppose an atheist must, contra a
creator God, on the basis of "self-organization," etc., etc. But I
thought we were discussing here what Peirce's views were, not even
whether they are correct, held by all theists, etc.
  As you've remarked, the views you're offered in quotation after
quotation aren't even necessarily yours (nor mine, for that matter --
and some of them aren't mine) but, rather, Peirce's if we take him at
his word in the myriad passages you've quoted. I'm actually surprised
that you've hung in there as long as you have, Jon, against Edwina's
obstinate refusal to admit what at this point in the discussion can't
-- or so it seems to me -- reasonably be denied, namely, Peirce's
theism.  
 Parenthetically, I tend to interpret (or, perhaps, misinterpret)
Peirce as a peculiar kind of theist, a kind of 'scientific theist',
this idea based on, for prime example, the concluding lectures in the
1898 series published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things, where the
blackboard example represents for me a kind of ur-continuity before
the Big Bang, one which in my thinking, at least, suggests those
conditions (of? in? the Mind of God) which have the capability to
create not only  this Universe but every possible one. But that could
be an entirely different discussion altogether.
 If no one else but Edwina refutes the principal conclusion that
you've argued for and texually supported, I would like to suggest, as
Edwina already has, that there is hardly a reason to continue this
discussion any further. I'm sure Edwina might want to take me to task
for suggesting that she actually can be as obdurate as she once agreed
with me on List that she can be (as I recall, we employed the word
'stubborn'). But her 'reasoning' in this matter is beyond at least my
ken. 
 Still, if anyone here can support her position as regards Peirce's
beliefs, I for one would like to have them sound in on this. And, i'd
add: if Peirce were not a theist, then what was he?
  Best,
 Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
 On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <
jonalanschm...@gmail.com [2]> wrote:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: The reason that I do not agree with your request ... is because
I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this
'traditional definition'. 
 There is no passage whatsoever in Peirce's writings where he
explicitly denies that God as traditionally defined is the real and
transcendent creator of the universe. On the other hand, I have
quoted several passages where he explicitly affirms that God as
traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the
universe. Interpreting passages where he discusses his cosmology
without explicitly mentioning God at all as somehow rejecting God's
reality and transcendence as creator of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-11 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list

My goodness - why challenge the List to 'prove Edwina wrong'?

I claim that Peirce's whole work is not theistic - I don't use just
one article - and I included quotations from his later years, to show
that scientifically and logically - Peirce was not a theist 'in the
traditional sense'  [a 'real and transcendent creator of the
universe]. and was instead, outlining a self-organized logical,
rational, networked, agapastically interactive Universe. All of those
analyses, in extensive outlines,  can be found throughout his work.
Hardly something that he would abandon in one article.

I have also pointed out the difference between science and religion
- and I consider that the two have little in common. Religion
functions within the emotions and the community.  I consider that
Peirce's outline in the NA article is a religious opinion - though I
do like Jon Awbrey's suggestion of it as an abductive argument, a
'Holy Guess'..i.e, an opinion and not scientific. 

I also question why the Appeal-to-Majority' by you should be
considered definitive? 

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21 11:17 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Jon, List,
 Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not
simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least
toward the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the
real and transcendent creator of the universe?" 
 Who would deny (except, obviously, Edwina) not so much that you have
argued your position admirably well (which I believe you have), but
that it has been through an abundance of textual support that there
can be no serious substantive argument refuting that "at least toward
the end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and
transcendent creator of the universe"? I think that your "at least"
here is actually quite intellectually generous.  
 So I am genuinely interested and do ask the List: are there other
members of this forum who would deny that Peirce meant what he wrote
when, for but one famous example from 1908 now oft repeated here,
that this was his belief: "THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we
Americans say), is the definable proper name, signifying Ens
necessarium; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience"? That is, who else here would deny that Peirce believed
in a creator God? 
 So far -- but I'm willing to be proved wrong -- it seems to me that
Edwina simply refuses to account for or accept anything (notably,
Peirce's own words) that conflicts with her apparently settled view
of the matter, arguing that Peirce was not a theist? 
  No doubt one could argue, as I suppose an atheist must, contra a
creator God, on the basis of "self-organization," etc., etc. But I
thought we were discussing here what Peirce's views were, not even
whether they are correct, held by all theists, etc.
  As you've remarked, the views you're offered in quotation after
quotation aren't even necessarily yours (nor mine, for that matter --
and some of them aren't mine) but, rather, Peirce's if we take him at
his word in the myriad passages you've quoted. I'm actually surprised
that you've hung in there as long as you have, Jon, against Edwina's
obstinate refusal to admit what at this point in the discussion can't
-- or so it seems to me -- reasonably be denied, namely, Peirce's
theism.  
 Parenthetically, I tend to interpret (or, perhaps, misinterpret)
Peirce as a peculiar kind of theist, a kind of 'scientific theist',
this idea based on, for prime example, the concluding lectures in the
1898 series published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things, where the
blackboard example represents for me a kind of ur-continuity before
the Big Bang, one which in my thinking, at least, suggests those
conditions (of? in? the Mind of God) which have the capability to
create not only  this Universe but every possible one. But that could
be an entirely different discussion altogether.
 If no one else but Edwina refutes the principal conclusion that
you've argued for and texually supported, I would like to suggest, as
Edwina already has, that there is hardly a reason to continue this
discussion any further. I'm sure Edwina might want to take me to task
for suggesting that she actually can be as obdurate as she once agreed
with me on List that she can be (as I recall, we employed the word
'stubborn'). But her 'reasoning' in this matter is beyond at least my
ken. 
 Still, if anyone here can support her position as regards Peirce's
beliefs, I for one would like to have them sound in on this. And, i'd
add: if Peirce were not a theist, then what was he?
  Best,
 Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Gary Richmond

Phyllis, Jon, Edwina, John, List,

*O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!*
*Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,*
*und freudenvollere.*

*Oh friends, not these sounds!*
*Let us instead strike up more pleasing **and more joyful ones!*

*Choral Symphony: The words above are Beethoven's; they introduce
Schiller's' 'Ode to Joy' which Beethoven sets in the last movement of his
Ninth Symphony. GR*

We are skin and bones *and* the life of God within us. Even lives that feel
relentlessly ordinary or hopelessly broken are vessels of divine purpose.
We are embraced, elevated and dignified by God’s astounding humility.

This should be a source of hope. I am not speaking here of optimism, which
is more like a genetic gift than the foundation of a life. Some of us, in
contrast, have the genetic affliction of depression, which can bathe life’s
wonders in dirty dishwater, making our days appear gray and
two-dimensional. Depression tries to convince us that hope itself is a
fiction. Sometimes the only comfort lies in knowing your mind is a vicious
liar and in managing to endure another day.

But when we are thinking clearly, most of us can recall glimpses of
purpose, beauty and glory in our lives. In the overwhelming calm and joy of
holding our child close. In the majesty and marvelous internal order of
nature. In art or music that touches our deepest being. In the undeserved,
sacrificial love of a friend. And maybe, if we are silent and open, in the
sense that a benign God is speaking to us in the seemingly random events of
our lives.

Michael Gerson  (an
excerpt from his essay in The Washington Post, December 24, 2020

Choose Something Like a Star

by Robert Frost 

O Star (the fairest one in sight),
We grant your loftiness the right
To some obscurity of cloud—
It will not do to say of night,
Since dark is what brings out your light.
Some mystery becomes the proud.
But to be wholly taciturn
In your reserve is not allowed.
Say something to us we can learn
By heart and when alone repeat.
Say something! And it says, ‘I burn.’
But say with what degree of heat.
Talk Fahrenheit, talk Centigrade.
Use language we can comprehend.
Tell us what elements you blend.
It gives us strangely little aid,
But does tell something in the end.
And steadfast as Keats’ Eremite,
Not even stooping from its sphere,
It asks a little of us here.
It asks of us a certain height,
So when at times the mob is swayed
To carry praise or blame too far,
We may choose something like a star
To stay our minds on and be staid

“Choose Something Like a Star” by Robert Frost from *Collected Poems, Prose
& Plays*. © The Library of America, 1995

For Randall Thompson's moving choral setting of this poem see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dg2iE2ixeE

With best wishes for all,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:53 AM sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:

> Jon AS,List,
>
> The "musings" in the NA are so vague that they don't imply anything more
> than the existence of something that affects the ways of thinking of all or
> nearly all populations around the world.  Whatever they call it, it's a
> very important Ens necessarium,.  Beyond that, the NA doesn't say anything
> specific.  Whatever commonalities may occur among the beliefs of the
> nations along the Silk Road can be attributed to wandering gurus.
>
> JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with
> God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
> Testament.
>
> JAS: On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the
> New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
> "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
> (1 John 4:8&16).I
>
> Since the words 'spirit', 'light', and 'love' have very different
> definitions in Greek and other languages, the word 'is' cannot be
> interpreted as equality.  It' s unclear how John intended those sentences
> to be interpreted.  The fact that Peirce happened to mention his fondness
> for John's gospel does not provide any evidence for how he interpreted any
> parts of it.
>
> For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations.
>
> John
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
> l...@list.iupui.edu 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;

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread sowa @bestweb.net

Jon AS,List,
  
 The "musings" in the NA are so vague that they don't imply anything more 
than the existence of something that affects the ways of thinking of all or 
nearly all populations around the world.  Whatever they call it, it's a 
very important Ens necessarium,.  Beyond that, the NA doesn't say anything 
specific.  Whatever commonalities may occur among the beliefs of the 
nations along the Silk Road can be attributed to wandering gurus.
  
 JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with 
God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New 
Testament.
  
 JAS: On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the 
New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example, 
"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love" 
(1 John 4:8&16).I
  
 Since the words 'spirit', 'light', and 'love' have very different 
definitions in Greek and other languages, the word 'is' cannot be 
interpreted as equality.  It' s unclear how John intended those sentences 
to be interpreted.  The fact that Peirce happened to mention his fondness 
for John's gospel does not provide any evidence for how he interpreted any 
parts of it.
  
 For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations.

  
 John


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Phyllis Chiasson

Yes. Peirce was a theist. I think he was very abstract (God as firstness)
despite the definitions, which are pretty traditional.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:18 PM Gary Richmond  wrote:

> Jon, List,
>
> Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not simply
> admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least toward the
> end of his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and
> transcendent creator of the universe?"
>
> Who would deny (except, obviously, Edwina) not so much that you have
> argued your position admirably well (which I believe you have), but that it
> has been through an abundance of textual support that there can be no
> serious substantive argument refuting that "at least toward the end of his
> life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
> creator of the universe"? I think that your "at least" here is actually
> quite intellectually generous.
>
> So I am genuinely interested and do ask the List: are there other members
> of this forum who would deny that Peirce meant what he wrote when, for but
> one famous example from 1908 now oft repeated here, that *this* was his
> belief: "THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
> definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
> creator of all three Universes of Experience"? That is, who else here would
> deny that Peirce believed in a creator God?
>
> So far -- but I'm willing to be proved wrong -- it seems to me that Edwina
> simply refuses to account for or accept anything (notably, Peirce's own
> words) that conflicts with her apparently settled view of the matter,
> arguing that Peirce was *not* a theist?
>
> No doubt one could argue, as I suppose an atheist must, *contra* a
> creator God, on the basis of "self-organization," etc., etc. But I thought
> we were discussing here what *Peirce's views were*, not even whether they
> are correct, held by all theists, etc.
>
> As you've remarked, the views you're offered in quotation after quotation
> aren't even necessarily yours (nor mine, for that matter -- and some of
> them aren't mine) but, rather, Peirce's if we take him at his word in the
> myriad passages you've quoted. I'm actually surprised that you've hung in
> there as long as you have, Jon, against Edwina's obstinate refusal to admit
> what at this point in the discussion can't -- or so it seems to me --
> reasonably be denied, namely, Peirce's theism.
>
> Parenthetically, I tend to interpret (or, perhaps, misinterpret) Peirce as
> a peculiar kind of theist, a kind of 'scientific theist', this idea based
> on, for prime example, the concluding lectures in the 1898 series published
> as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things,* where the blackboard example
> represents for me a kind of ur-continuity before the Big Bang, one which in
> my thinking, at least, suggests those conditions (of? in? the Mind of God)
> which have the capability to create not only *this* Universe but *every* 
> possible
> one. But that could be an entirely different discussion altogether.
>
> If no one else but Edwina refutes the principal conclusion that you've
> argued for and texually supported, I would like to suggest, as Edwina
> already has, that there is hardly a reason to continue this discussion any
> further. I'm sure Edwina might want to take me to task for suggesting that
> she actually can be as obdurate as she once agreed with me on List that she
> can be (as I recall, we employed the word 'stubborn'). But her 'reasoning'
> in this matter is beyond at least my ken.
>
> Still, if anyone here *can* support *her* position as regards Peirce's
> beliefs, I for one would like to have them sound in on this. And, i'd add:
> if Peirce were not a theist, then what was he?
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, List:
>>
>> ET: The reason that I do not agree with your request ... is because I
>> read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional
>> definition'.
>>
>>
>> There is no passage whatsoever in Peirce's writings where he *explicitly
>> denies* that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
>> creator of the universe. On the other hand, I have quoted several passages
>> where he *explicitly affirms* that God as traditionally defined is the
>> real and transcendent creator of the universe. Interpreting passages where
>> he discusses his cosmology without explicitly mentioning God at all as
>> somehow rejecting God's reality and transcendence as creator of the
>> universe *directly contradicts* what he says in those other texts, and
>> is thus untenable--unless one claims that he changed his mind at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Gary Richmond

Jon, List,

Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not simply admit
disagreement with his explicitly stated belief, at least toward the end of
his life, that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
creator of the universe?"

Who would deny (except, obviously, Edwina) not so much that you have argued
your position admirably well (which I believe you have), but that it has
been through an abundance of textual support that there can be no serious
substantive argument refuting that "at least toward the end of his life,
that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of
the universe"? I think that your "at least" here is actually quite
intellectually generous.

So I am genuinely interested and do ask the List: are there other members
of this forum who would deny that Peirce meant what he wrote when, for but
one famous example from 1908 now oft repeated here, that *this* was his
belief: "THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience"? That is, who else here would
deny that Peirce believed in a creator God?

So far -- but I'm willing to be proved wrong -- it seems to me that Edwina
simply refuses to account for or accept anything (notably, Peirce's own
words) that conflicts with her apparently settled view of the matter,
arguing that Peirce was *not* a theist?

No doubt one could argue, as I suppose an atheist must, *contra* a creator
God, on the basis of "self-organization," etc., etc. But I thought we were
discussing here what *Peirce's views were*, not even whether they are
correct, held by all theists, etc.

As you've remarked, the views you're offered in quotation after quotation
aren't even necessarily yours (nor mine, for that matter -- and some of
them aren't mine) but, rather, Peirce's if we take him at his word in the
myriad passages you've quoted. I'm actually surprised that you've hung in
there as long as you have, Jon, against Edwina's obstinate refusal to admit
what at this point in the discussion can't -- or so it seems to me --
reasonably be denied, namely, Peirce's theism.

Parenthetically, I tend to interpret (or, perhaps, misinterpret) Peirce as
a peculiar kind of theist, a kind of 'scientific theist', this idea based
on, for prime example, the concluding lectures in the 1898 series published
as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things,* where the blackboard example
represents for me a kind of ur-continuity before the Big Bang, one which in
my thinking, at least, suggests those conditions (of? in? the Mind of God)
which have the capability to create not only *this* Universe but
*every* possible
one. But that could be an entirely different discussion altogether.

If no one else but Edwina refutes the principal conclusion that you've
argued for and texually supported, I would like to suggest, as Edwina
already has, that there is hardly a reason to continue this discussion any
further. I'm sure Edwina might want to take me to task for suggesting that
she actually can be as obdurate as she once agreed with me on List that she
can be (as I recall, we employed the word 'stubborn'). But her 'reasoning'
in this matter is beyond at least my ken.

Still, if anyone here *can* support *her* position as regards Peirce's
beliefs, I for one would like to have them sound in on this. And, i'd add:
if Peirce were not a theist, then what was he?

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: The reason that I do not agree with your request ... is because I read
> OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'.
>
>
> There is no passage whatsoever in Peirce's writings where he *explicitly
> denies* that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
> creator of the universe. On the other hand, I have quoted several passages
> where he *explicitly affirms* that God as traditionally defined is the
> real and transcendent creator of the universe. Interpreting passages where
> he discusses his cosmology without explicitly mentioning God at all as
> somehow rejecting God's reality and transcendence as creator of the
> universe *directly contradicts* what he says in those other texts, and is
> thus untenable--unless one claims that he changed his mind at some point,
> since those other texts are generally dated later.
>
> So I ask one more time--why not simply admit disagreement with his
> explicitly stated belief, at least toward the end of his life, that God as
> traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the universe?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

Helmut, list

This discussion here, is about religion in populations. And not
about cosmology or the emergence of Mind/Matter. 

My view is that animism is 'first', so to speak, in that it emerges
in SMALL populations, ie, hunting and gathering bands. The focus is
on multiple spirits -not gods which have authority - but life-force
spirits closely in contact with human beings. 

Polytheism is next in the history of man - and emerges in larger
populations, which were usually, economically, agricultural and thus,
politically multi-leveled and hierarchical. The religions that
developed would follow similar patterns, with multiple gods, and a
'Big Man' chief god but with many, many 'local gods' in the
god-family, so to speak.. Many of these multiple gods were local
deities, in charge of local agendas and economic or other social
functions.

Monotheism is a very late development - and moves into an
authoritative function over a much, much larger population, where the
people are 'kept in line' so to speak, by a common authoritative god 
who is all-powerful, [like an emperor, King]...and the people are
discouraged from having local, 'small-town' gods'.

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21  4:12 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
 Edwina, List,   Yes, the Greek and Roman polytheism is marvellous. I
wonder where it had derived from. I have looked at Wikipedia
"Polytheism", the experts quibble very muchly what was first and what
came then. My suspection is, that first was animism, with some
singular life force such as Manitou -personal or impersonal,
monotheism or not theism, depends on how you define "person", I would
say-, then came polytheism, to give the folks something to identify
with and pray to: A personal counselor who understands their special
needs, and can be adressed without too much abstraction needed. Then
came Henotheism, one God from the pantheon was elected for superior,
like Allah, who originally was the moongod, or Jahwe, maleified from
"Eva" in the patriarchalic revolution, or Echnaton´s Aton, whose
original job was to be the sun and shine. Then this superior God was
given traits like having been the first, having created everything,
being the master of his saints-followers. Then these saints again
became something like Gods again, and the second wave of polytheism
emerged. And so on. But I wonder, if it was so, how do the Greek and
Roman (and Celtic and German) Gods fit in this evolution? Maybe the
Europeans, like later and today too, were so arrogant that they
wanted to keep the superior office free from spirituality, so a jarl,
chief, or cesar could obtain it?   Best, Helmut   10. September
2021 um 21:16 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  

Helmut, list 

I stand by my point that the monotheistic religions, which focus
only on ONE god, - "and no other gods" - emerged only with the
development of settled and larger populations; ie, in the last few
thousand years  [with the development of agriculture].. And this
singular god also became anthropomorphic, i.e., human-like'. 

Animism has no 'gods'  as such but has spirits. Polytheism - has
multiple gods. I'm sure you've heard of the Greek and Roman hordes of
them!! Marvellous creations of the imagination! 

The term 'Manitou' refers to a basic life force that functions in
all of life. This is not similar, I think, to the monotheistic God.
The Gitche Manitou is a supreme life force - and is animistic rather
than a monotheistic god. 

I don't think that the Catholic use of 'saints' is comparable to
polytheism! Heh - that would be something to talk about! 

Edwina 
 On Fri 10/09/21 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:  
Edwina, JAS, List,   I have read, that "religion" either means
"reading again", or, more likely, "reconnection". In the more likely
latter case, it should be a reconnection with a higher authority (or
more of them), not merely a form of behavior. Ok, the "re" in
"reconnection" suggests alienation, and maybe alienation is a trait
of civilization, i.e. higher populations.   I doubt, that the notion
of a singular God is found only since a few thousand years, at least
with God as a pantheistic concept. I think so, because today
animistic religions have this singular concept: Manitou (Algonkin),
Paratman (Brahman religion, Sanskrit), and animism is likely to be be
very old. Polytheism and carved or painted idols don´t exclude
monotheism, I think. Hinduism, for examle, is a religion whose
skilled priests say that it is monotheistic, though there are many
subgods or avatars. I think it is also justified to say, that in
catholicism there is a development towards polytheism, at least there
are many saints you can pray to. Is it so, that Manitou and Paratman
are, as pantheistic definitions, in accord with Peirce, and the
christian God and the God of Echnaton are not?Best, Helmut10.
September 2021 um 20:11 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Helmut, List:

As I understand it, pantheism is the view the universe is *itself *God,
while panentheism is the view that the universe is *within *God. Peirce
states the following in his *Century Dictionary* entry for "immanent" (
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=04=325
).

CSP: In modern philosophy the word is applied to the operations of a
creator conceived as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a
creator himself, as opposed to a *transient* or *transcendent* creating and
creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of
an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of
the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God.


Hence, Peirce's emphatic denials that God is immanent in the universe are
explicit rejections of *both *pantheism (the world is God) *and *panentheism
(the world is in God). Again, he instead identifies himself as a theist.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:55 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Jon, List,
>
> Is that panentheism? And, what distinguishes panentheism from pantheism,
> is that a fundamental distinction, is it two different concepts of
> "universe", one excluding, one including its origin and metaphysics, which
> is some question, nobody ever can answer, so trying is futile, and depends
> on a kind of belief not graspable? Maybe both: Fundamental, and not
> answerable. So, what is the benefit of discussing something we know we
> cannot know? We have to live with uncertainty.
> Best, Helmut
> 10. September 2021 um 22:32 Uhr
>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> wrote:
> Edwina, List:
>
> "Personal" is not synonymous with "individual." According to Peirce, God
> being personal means that "we must have a direct perception of that person
> and indeed be in personal communication with him" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332,
> 1892). Conveniently, it turns out that he also prepared the entry for
> "personal" in the *Century Dictionary* (
> http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05=859
> ).
>
>
> *personal*, *a*. and *n*. *I.* *a.* *1.* Pertaining to a person or
> self-conscious being as distinct or distinguished from a thing; having
> personality, or the character of a person; self-conscious; belonging to men
> and women, or to superhuman intelligences, and not to animals or things:
> as, a *personal *God.
>
>
> The entire universe, conceived as "Mind," is not "personal" in this sense.
> Moreover, as John 1:3 states, "All things were made by him [the Logos]; and
> without him was not any thing made that was made." Hence, the Logos as
> creator of the universe is something *other *than the universe, not the
> universe itself somehow being self-generating and self-organizing. The
> latter would be "pantheism, which denies or ignores the personality of God."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> JAS, list
>>
>> I wouldn't say that 'Mind' is 'impersonal'. Following Peirce's
>> hylomorphism, my understanding is that 'Mind' emerges as organized Matter.
>> As such, it is both 'individualized' [personal] and, of course, communal
>> habits [impersonal].
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> On Fri 10/09/21 3:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> John, Edwina, List:
>>
>>
>> JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with
>> God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
>> Testament.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the New
>> Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
>> "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
>> (1 John 4:8&16).
>>
>>
>> ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>>
>>
>> The problem with interpreting "Logos" as impersonal "Mind" in the first
>> chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And
>> the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
>> glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
>> truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as personal such
>> that God became a human being.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <
>> edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I agree, they are compatible.
>>>
>>> Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as ‘soul’
>>> would have to be explained .
>>> I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>>> The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality,
>>> by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational
>>> narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net < s...@bestweb.net>
>>> wrote:

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Helmut Raulien

Jon, List,

Is that panentheism? And, what distinguishes panentheism from pantheism, is that a fundamental distinction, is it two different concepts of "universe", one excluding, one including its origin and metaphysics, which is some question, nobody ever can answer, so trying is futile, and depends on a kind of belief not graspable? Maybe both: Fundamental, and not answerable. So, what is the benefit of discussing something we know we cannot know? We have to live with uncertainty.

Best, Helmut

10. September 2021 um 22:32 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:

Edwina, List:

"Personal" is not synonymous with "individual." According to Peirce, God being personal means that "we must have a direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332, 1892). Conveniently, it turns out that he also prepared the entry for "personal" in the Century Dictionary (http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05=859).

personal, a. and n. I. a. 1. Pertaining to a person or self-conscious being as distinct or distinguished from a thing; having personality, or the character of a person; self-conscious; belonging to men and women, or to superhuman intelligences, and not to animals or things: as, a personal God.

The entire universe, conceived as "Mind," is not "personal" in this sense. Moreover, as John 1:3 states, "All things were made by him [the Logos]; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Hence, the Logos as creator of the universe is something other than the universe, not the universe itself somehow being self-generating and self-organizing. The latter would be "pantheism, which denies or ignores the personality of God."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:

JAS, list

I wouldn't say that 'Mind' is 'impersonal'. Following Peirce's hylomorphism, my understanding is that 'Mind' emerges as organized Matter. As such, it is both 'individualized' [personal] and, of course, communal habits [impersonal].

Edwina

On Fri 10/09/21 3:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:

John, Edwina, List:

JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.

On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love" (1 John 4:8&16).

ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.

The problem with interpreting "Logos" as impersonal "Mind" in the first chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as personal such that God became a human being.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:

Yes, I agree, they are compatible.

Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others ) - such as ‘soul’ would have to be explained .

I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.

The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality, by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.

Edwina
Sent from my iPad

On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net < s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

Edwina, Jon AS, List,

Those two comments are completely compatible.

ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL human populations.

JAS: Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.

But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate. That sentence is a paraphrase of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible. Please note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New Testament. And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.

In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets. I don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India, Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.

Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

"Personal" is not synonymous with "individual." According to Peirce, God
being personal means that "we must have a direct perception of that person
and indeed be in personal communication with him" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332,
1892). Conveniently, it turns out that he also prepared the entry for
"personal" in the *Century Dictionary* (
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05=859
).

*personal*, *a*. and *n*. *I.* *a.* *1.* Pertaining to a person or
self-conscious being as distinct or distinguished from a thing; having
personality, or the character of a person; self-conscious; belonging to men
and women, or to superhuman intelligences, and not to animals or things:
as, a *personal *God.


The entire universe, conceived as "Mind," is not "personal" in this sense.
Moreover, as John 1:3 states, "All things were made by him [the Logos]; and
without him was not any thing made that was made." Hence, the Logos as
creator of the universe is something *other *than the universe, not the
universe itself somehow being self-generating and self-organizing. The
latter would be "pantheism, which denies or ignores the personality of God."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> I wouldn't say that 'Mind' is 'impersonal'. Following Peirce's
> hylomorphism, my understanding is that 'Mind' emerges as organized Matter.
> As such, it is both 'individualized' [personal] and, of course, communal
> habits [impersonal].
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 10/09/21 3:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> John, Edwina, List:
>
> JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with
> God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
> Testament.
>
>
> On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the New
> Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
> "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
> (1 John 4:8&16).
>
> ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>
>
> The problem with interpreting "Logos" as impersonal "Mind" in the first
> chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And
> the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
> glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
> truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as personal such
> that God became a human being.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <
> edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree, they are compatible.
>>
>> Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as ‘soul’
>> would have to be explained .
>> I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>> The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality,
>> by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational
>> narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net < s...@bestweb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Edwina, Jon AS, List,
>>
>> Those two comments are completely compatible.
>> --
>> ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
>> human populations.
>>
>> JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct
>> by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
>>
>> But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase
>> of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please
>> note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In
>> the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God
>> was the Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.
>> And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.
>>
>> In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to
>> show that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I
>> don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk
>> Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India,
>> Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
>>
>> Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint
>> (Greek translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was
>> influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..
>>
>> John
>>
>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, List,

Yes, the Greek and Roman polytheism is marvellous. I wonder where it had derived from. I have looked at Wikipedia "Polytheism", the experts quibble very muchly what was first and what came then. My suspection is, that first was animism, with some singular life force such as Manitou -personal or impersonal, monotheism or not theism, depends on how you define "person", I would say-, then came polytheism, to give the folks something to identify with and pray to: A personal counselor who understands their special needs, and can be adressed without too much abstraction needed. Then came Henotheism, one God from the pantheon was elected for superior, like Allah, who originally was the moongod, or Jahwe, maleified from "Eva" in the patriarchalic revolution, or Echnaton´s Aton, whose original job was to be the sun and shine. Then this superior God was given traits like having been the first, having created everything, being the master of his saints-followers. Then these saints again became something like Gods again, and the second wave of polytheism emerged. And so on. But I wonder, if it was so, how do the Greek and Roman (and Celtic and German) Gods fit in this evolution? Maybe the Europeans, like later and today too, were so arrogant that they wanted to keep the superior office free from spirituality, so a jarl, chief, or cesar could obtain it?

Best,

Helmut

10. September 2021 um 21:16 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut, list

I stand by my point that the monotheistic religions, which focus only on ONE god, - "and no other gods" - emerged only with the development of settled and larger populations; ie, in the last few thousand years [with the development of agriculture].. And this singular god also became anthropomorphic, i.e., human-like'.

Animism has no 'gods' as such but has spirits. Polytheism - has multiple gods. I'm sure you've heard of the Greek and Roman hordes of them!! Marvellous creations of the imagination!

The term 'Manitou' refers to a basic life force that functions in all of life. This is not similar, I think, to the monotheistic God. The Gitche Manitou is a supreme life force - and is animistic rather than a monotheistic god.

I don't think that the Catholic use of 'saints' is comparable to polytheism! Heh - that would be something to talk about!

Edwina

On Fri 10/09/21 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina, JAS, List,

I have read, that "religion" either means "reading again", or, more likely, "reconnection". In the more likely latter case, it should be a reconnection with a higher authority (or more of them), not merely a form of behavior. Ok, the "re" in "reconnection" suggests alienation, and maybe alienation is a trait of civilization, i.e. higher populations.

I doubt, that the notion of a singular God is found only since a few thousand years, at least with God as a pantheistic concept. I think so, because today animistic religions have this singular concept: Manitou (Algonkin), Paratman (Brahman religion, Sanskrit), and animism is likely to be be very old. Polytheism and carved or painted idols don´t exclude monotheism, I think. Hinduism, for examle, is a religion whose skilled priests say that it is monotheistic, though there are many subgods or avatars. I think it is also justified to say, that in catholicism there is a development towards polytheism, at least there are many saints you can pray to. Is it so, that Manitou and Paratman are, as pantheistic definitions, in accord with Peirce, and the christian God and the God of Echnaton are not?

Best, Helmut

10. September 2021 um 20:11 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

JAS, list

The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?"

..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with specific sites and dates.

That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a pre-Big Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is created by something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang - there was 'nility'.

I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better fit for Peirce.

But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind, Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: The reason that I do not agree with your request ... is because I read
OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'.


There is no passage whatsoever in Peirce's writings where he *explicitly
denies* that God as traditionally defined is the real and transcendent
creator of the universe. On the other hand, I have quoted several passages
where he *explicitly affirms* that God as traditionally defined is the real
and transcendent creator of the universe. Interpreting passages where he
discusses his cosmology without explicitly mentioning God at all as somehow
rejecting God's reality and transcendence as creator of the universe *directly
contradicts* what he says in those other texts, and is thus
untenable--unless one claims that he changed his mind at some point, since
those other texts are generally dated later.

So I ask one more time--why not simply admit disagreement with his
explicitly stated belief, at least toward the end of his life, that God as
traditionally defined is the real and transcendent creator of the universe?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 1:11 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not simply
> admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God as
> traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those
> attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?"
>
> ..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this
> 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with specific sites
> and dates.
>
> That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a pre-Big
> Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is created by
> something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang - there was
> 'nility'.
>
> I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which as I
> understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better fit for
> Peirce.
>
> But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind, Nature,
> Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!
>
> And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the
> societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as the
> infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis for
> religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and emotional,
>  and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as a cohesive and
> morality-inducing system within a population; it explains the origin and
> function of the population; it enables individual emotional traumas to be
> acknowledged and borne. It exists without any 'higher authority'; ie, you
> will find religion and all these aspects of belief and behaviour among
> populations with no notion of a singular God or even multiple gods.
>
> But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large populations
> and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is, I feel, a
> metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the psychological and
> societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose to focus on Peirce's
> explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines of Mind-as-Matter, his
> outlines of the universal operation of Mind, his outlines of the emergence
> of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't focus on his outline of religion,
> which I feel, is quite different.
>
> What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are two
> Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there is a
> 'final opinion' on them.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear Phyllis, Edwina, JAS, John, Gary, list,


I have read that:


*The goal of an inference is *

*to establish the existence of an unperceived object,*

*and if we did perceive that object, *

*we would have no need to infer it; *

*however inference *necessarily* regards an object *

*that has already been perceived.*


Does anyone know what this means and who wrote it?

I am *certain* there is Wisdom in it but not sure why.

It appears to me there is fruit here,

which may connect to Phyllis’ call for formal analysis by the ordinary;

that is, fifth graders.

I mean, even *Harris* knows that, *already*, amirite?


Btw, Phyllis, I have long admired your efforts to communicate Peirce ideas
to ordinary folk.

In fact, I have sometimes used your go-carts of judgment.

Thank you, also, for your attempts at reducing the temperature on here.

Your actions, I believe, are representative of *sophrosune*,

the virtue of the man who could but does not abuse his power..

and when the word is applied to women.. *the* womanly virtue..


With best wishes,
Jerry R

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> John, Edwina, List:
>
> JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with
> God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
> Testament.
>
>
> On the contrary, it is by no means the *only *definition of God in the
> New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
> "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
> (1 John 4:8&16).
>
> ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>
>
> The problem with interpreting "Logos" as *impersonal *"Mind" in the first
> chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And
> the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
> glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
> truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as *personal *such
> that God became a human being.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <
> edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree, they are compatible.
>>
>> Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as ‘soul’
>> would have to be explained .
>> I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
>> The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality,
>> by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational
>> narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:
>>
>> Edwina, Jon AS, List,
>>
>> Those two comments are completely compatible.
>> --
>> ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
>> human populations.
>>
>> JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct
>> by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
>>
>> But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase
>> of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please
>> note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In
>> the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God
>> was the Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.
>> And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.
>>
>> In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to
>> show that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I
>> don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk
>> Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India,
>> Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
>>
>> Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint
>> (Greek translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was
>> influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..
>>
>> John
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
> l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

I wouldn't say that 'Mind' is 'impersonal'. Following Peirce's
hylomorphism, my understanding is that 'Mind' emerges as organized
Matter. As such, it is both 'individualized' [personal] and, of
course, communal habits [impersonal].

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21  3:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 John, Edwina, List:
 JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was
with God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God
in the New Testament.
 On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the
New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For
example, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5);
"God is love" (1 John 4:8&16). 
 ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
 The problem with interpreting "Logos" as impersonal "Mind" in the
first chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in
verse 14--"And the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father,) full of grace and truth." This obviously entails a
conception of the Logos as  personal such that God became a human
being.
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] 
 On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
 Yes, I agree, they are compatible. 
 Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as
‘soul’ would have to be explained . I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.The
development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality,
by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational
narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.
 Edwina
 Sent from my iPad
 On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net [4] <
s...@bestweb.net [5]> wrote:
 Edwina, Jon AS, List,   Those two comments are completely
compatible. 
-
ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour -
among ALL human populations. JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that
prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses
consciousness of its relation to God.   But the word 'plainly' is not
appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase of a much more nuanced
comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please note that Peirce's
favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In the beginning
(en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the
Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.  And
it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.   In fact, Philo Judaeus
of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show that the Greek
philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I don't believe
that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk Road that
carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus to and from China, India,
Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.   Also note that
Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint (Greek
translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was
influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers.. John 


Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'edwina.tabor...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://bestweb.net
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

Helmut, list

I stand by my point that the monotheistic religions, which focus
only on ONE god, - "and no other gods" - emerged only with the
development of settled and larger populations; ie, in the last few
thousand years  [with the development of agriculture].. And this
singular god also became anthropomorphic, i.e., human-like'. 

Animism has no 'gods'  as such but has spirits. Polytheism - has
multiple gods. I'm sure you've heard of the Greek and Roman hordes of
them!! Marvellous creations of the imagination!

The term 'Manitou' refers to a basic life force that functions in
all of life. This is not similar, I think, to the monotheistic God.
The Gitche Manitou is a supreme life force - and is animistic rather
than a monotheistic god.

I don't think that the Catholic use of 'saints' is comparable to
polytheism! Heh - that would be something to talk about!

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21  2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
 Edwina, JAS, List,   I have read, that "religion" either means
"reading again", or, more likely, "reconnection". In the more likely
latter case, it should be a reconnection with a higher authority (or
more of them), not merely a form of behavior. Ok, the "re" in
"reconnection" suggests alienation, and maybe alienation is a trait
of civilization, i.e. higher populations.   I doubt, that the notion
of a singular God is found only since a few thousand years, at least
with God as a pantheistic concept. I think so, because today
animistic religions have this singular concept: Manitou (Algonkin),
Paratman (Brahman religion, Sanskrit), and animism is likely to be be
very old. Polytheism and carved or painted idols don´t exclude
monotheism, I think. Hinduism, for examle, is a religion whose
skilled priests say that it is monotheistic, though there are many
subgods or avatars. I think it is also justified to say, that in
catholicism there is a development towards polytheism, at least there
are many saints you can pray to. Is it so, that Manitou and Paratman
are, as pantheistic definitions, in accord with Peirce, and the
christian God and the God of Echnaton are not?Best, Helmut10.
September 2021 um 20:11 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  

  JAS, list 

The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not
simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God
as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those
attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?" 

..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against
this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with
specific sites and dates. 

That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a
pre-Big Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is
created by something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang -
there was 'nility'. 

I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which
as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better
fit for Peirce. 

But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind,
Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies! 

And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the
societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as
the infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis
for religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and
emotional,  and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as
a cohesive and morality-inducing system within a population; it
explains the origin and function of the population; it enables
individual emotional traumas to be acknowledged and borne. It exists
without any 'higher authority'; ie, you will find religion and all
these aspects of belief and behaviour among populations with no
notion of a singular God or even multiple gods. 

But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large
populations and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is,
I feel, a metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the
psychological and societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose
to focus on Peirce's explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines
of Mind-as-Matter, his outlines of the universal operation of Mind,
his outlines of the emergence of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't
focus on his outline of religion, which I feel, is quite different. 

What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are
two Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there
is a 'final opinion' on them. 

Edwina 
 On Fri 10/09/21 12:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:   Edwina, List:  ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all
three Universes of Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is
any different from the term of 'Mind'.  It is completely
different if by

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

John, Edwina, List:

JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,
and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New
Testament.


On the contrary, it is by no means the *only *definition of God in the New
Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example,
"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love"
(1 John 4:8&16).

ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.


The problem with interpreting "Logos" as *impersonal *"Mind" in the first
chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And
the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as *personal *such
that God became a human being.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky 
wrote:

> Yes, I agree, they are compatible.
>
> Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as ‘soul’
> would have to be explained .
> I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
> The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality,
> by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational
> narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.
>
> Edwina
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:
>
> Edwina, Jon AS, List,
>
> Those two comments are completely compatible.
> --
> ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
> human populations.
>
> JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct
> by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
>
> But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase
> of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please
> note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In
> the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God
> was the Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.
> And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.
>
> In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show
> that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I
> don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk
> Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India,
> Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
>
> Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint
> (Greek translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was
> influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..
>
> John
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, JAS, List,

Best, Helmut

10. September 2021 um 20:11 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

JAS, list

..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with specific sites and dates.

I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better fit for Peirce.

But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind, Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!

And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as the infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis for religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and emotional, and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as a cohesive and morality-inducing system within a population; it explains the origin and function of the population; it enables individual emotional traumas to be acknowledged and borne. It exists without any 'higher authority'; ie, you will find religion and all these aspects of belief and behaviour among populations with no notion of a singular God or even multiple gods.

But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large populations and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is, I feel, a metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the psychological and societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose to focus on Peirce's explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines of Mind-as-Matter, his outlines of the universal operation of Mind, his outlines of the emergence of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't focus on his outline of religion, which I feel, is quite different.

What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are two Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there is a 'final opinion' on them.

Edwina

On Fri 10/09/21 12:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:

Edwina, List:

ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from the term of 'Mind'.

It is completely different if by "Mind" (or "Reason" or "Nature") one is referring only to our existing universe and claiming that it is somehow self-organized, rather than created by something (or someone) other than itself. The latter is Peirce's explicitly stated belief.

ET: As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.

Again, it is Peirce's description, and he addresses the charge of anthropomorphism directly.

CSP: But as to its being unscientific because anthropomorphic, that is an objection of a very shallow kind, that arises from prejudices based upon much too narrow considerations. "Anthropomorphic" is what pretty much all conceptions are at bottom; otherwise other roots for the words in which to express them than the old Aryan roots would have to be found. And in regard to any preference for one kind of theory over another, it is well to remember that every single truth of science is due to the affinity of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not
simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God
as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those
attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?"

..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against
this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with
specific sites and dates. 

That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a
pre-Big Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is
created by something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang -
there was 'nility'. 

I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which
as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better
fit for Peirce.

But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind,
Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!

And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the
societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as
the infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis
for religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and
emotional,  and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as
a cohesive and morality-inducing system within a population; it
explains the origin and function of the population; it enables
individual emotional traumas to be acknowledged and borne. It exists
without any 'higher authority'; ie, you will find religion and all
these aspects of belief and behaviour among populations with no
notion of a singular God or even multiple gods. 

But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large
populations and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is,
I feel, a metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the
psychological and societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose
to focus on Peirce's explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines
of Mind-as-Matter, his outlines of the universal operation of Mind,
his outlines of the emergence of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't
focus on his outline of religion, which I feel, is quite different. 

What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are
two Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there
is a 'final opinion' on them.

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21 12:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from
the term of 'Mind'.
 It is completely different if by "Mind" (or "Reason" or "Nature")
one is referring only to our existing universe and claiming that it
is somehow self-organized, rather than created by something (or
someone)  other than itself. The latter is Peirce's explicitly stated
belief.
 ET: As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the
universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline
and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.
 Again, it is Peirce's description, and he addresses the charge of
anthropomorphism directly. 
 CSP: But as to its being unscientific because anthropomorphic, that
is an objection of a very shallow kind, that arises from prejudices
based upon much too narrow considerations. "Anthropomorphic" is what
pretty much all conceptions are at bottom; otherwise other roots for
the words in which to express them than the old Aryan roots would
have to be found. And in regard to any preference for one kind of
theory over another, it is well to remember that every single truth
of science is due to the affinity of the human soul to the soul of
the universe, imperfect as that affinity no doubt is. To say,
therefore, that a conception is one natural to man, which comes to
just about the same thing as to say that it is anthropomorphic, is as
high a recommendation as one could give to it in the eyes of an Exact
Logician. ... 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. Suppose, for
example, it is a question between accepting Telepathy or Spiritualism.
The former I dare say is the preferable working hypothesis because it
can be more readily subjected to experimental investigation. But as
long as there is no reason for believing it except phenomena that
Spiritualism is equally competent to explain, I think Spiritualism is
much the more likely to be approximately true, as being the more
anthropomorphic and natural idea; and in like manner, as between an
old-fashioned God and a modern patent Absolute,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Yes, I agree, they are compatible. 

Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others )   - such as ‘soul’ would 
have to be explained .
I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.
The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality, by all 
peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational narratives is a 
fascinating aspect of humanity.

Edwina

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net  wrote:
> 
> Edwina, Jon AS, List,
>  
> Those two comments are completely compatible.
> ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL 
> human populations.
>  
> JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by 
> which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
>  
> But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase of 
> a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please note 
> that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In the 
> beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was 
> the Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.  And it 
> is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.
>  
> In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show 
> that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I don't 
> believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk Road that 
> carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India, Persia, 
> Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
>  
> Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint (Greek 
> translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was influenced by 
> Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..  
>  
> John
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience"
is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from the term of 'Mind'.


It is *completely *different if by "Mind" (or "Reason" or "Nature") one is
referring only to our existing universe and claiming that it is somehow
self-organized, rather than created by something (or someone) *other *than
itself. The latter is Peirce's explicitly stated belief.

ET: As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe"
- that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline and provides no
analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.


Again, it is *Peirce's *description, and he addresses the charge of
anthropomorphism directly.

CSP: But as to its being unscientific because anthropomorphic, that is an
objection of a very shallow kind, that arises from prejudices based upon
much too narrow considerations. "Anthropomorphic" is what pretty much all
conceptions are at bottom; otherwise other roots for the words in which to
express them than the old Aryan roots would have to be found. And in regard
to any preference for one kind of theory over another, it is well to
remember that every single truth of science is due to the affinity of the
human soul to the soul of the universe, imperfect as that affinity no doubt
is. To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to man, which comes
to just about the same thing as to say that it is anthropomorphic, is as
high a recommendation as one could give to it in the eyes of an Exact
Logician. ... 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. Suppose, for example, it is a question between
accepting Telepathy or Spiritualism. The former I dare say is the
preferable working hypothesis because it can be more readily subjected to
experimental investigation. But as long as there is no reason for believing
it except phenomena that Spiritualism is equally competent to explain, I
think Spiritualism is much the more likely to be approximately true, as
being the more anthropomorphic and natural idea; and in like manner, as
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 5.47-47n, EP 2:152, 1903)


In fact, he straightforwardly identifies his "old-fashioned" notion of God
as that of an anthropomorphist and a theist.

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. For to begin with, existence
is reaction, and therefore no existent can be *clear supreme*. On the
contrary, a finite being, without much doubt, and at any rate *by
presumption*, is one of a genus; so that it would, to my mind, involve
polytheism. In the next place, anthropomorphism for me implies above all
that the true Ideal is a living power, which is a variation of the
ontological proof due, I believe, to Moncure Conway's predecessor, William
Johnson (*not *James) Fox. That is, the esthetic ideal, that which we all
love and adore, the altogether admirable, has, *as ideal*, necessarily a
mode of being to be called living. Because our ideas of the infinite are
necessarily extremely vague and become contradictory the moment we attempt
to make them precise. But still they are not utterly unmeaning, though they
can only be interpreted in our religious adoration and the consequent
effects upon conduct. This I think is good sound solid strong pragmatism.
Now the Ideal is not a finite existent. Moreover, the human mind and the
human heart have a filiation to God. That to me is the most comfortable
doctrine. At least I find it most wonderfully so every day in contemplating
all my misdeeds and shortcomings. (CP 8.262, 1905)


From this passage, we can add *living *to the list of adjectives that
Peirce uses in his verbal definitions of God, which achieve the *second*
grade of clearness--thus going beyond the *first *grade of clearness, which
is mere familiarity with the word and how to use it properly. Moreover, he
affirms here that "our religious adoration and the consequent effects upon
conduct" are valid *pragmatistic *interpretations of the concept of God,
which achieve the *third *grade of clearness.

CSP: The concept which is a logical interpretant is only imperfectly so. It
somewhat partakes of the nature of a verbal definition, and is as inferior
to the habit, and much in the same way, as a verbal definition is inferior
to the real definition. The deliberately formed, self-analyzing
habit,--self-analyzing because formed by the aid of analysis of the
exercises that nourished it,--is the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-10 Thread sowa @bestweb.net

Edwina, Jon AS, List,
  
 Those two comments are completely compatible. 

ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among 
ALL human populations.

   
 JAS:  Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct 
by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
  
 But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate.  That sentence is a paraphrase 
of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible.  Please 
note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist:  In 
the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God 
was the Logos.   That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.  
And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.
  
 In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show 
that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets.  I 
don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk 
Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India, 
Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
  
 Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint 
(Greek translation of the Hebrew).  It's very likely that John was 
influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..  
  
 John


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from
the term of 'Mind'. 

As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the
universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline
and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.

I continue to think that Peirce's analogy of Mind, Reason, Nature is
the most logical and scientific definition of the term of 'god'. .
[2.24 1902] [8.212 1905]; [6.490 1908] [6.502 1908]

And his Cosmology [A Guess at the Riddle 1890]. 'The Origin of the
Universe 6.214-, 1898 AND the NA 6.490 1908]. does not refer to an
agential creator,  but in all cases to an original nility and
subsequent 'taking of habits'. .[See also that this adaptive
evolution is continuous 6.505 ]

He does discuss religion, as, for example, in 6.395-- 1878 -  but as
I've suggested, religion and the idea of a god are not the same
[Peirce makes this same point in this section and see 6.504 ]. I
think that religious references to god - and Peirce does indeed
include these, are psychological aspects of human behaviour:
emotional.

I think that's 'where it's at', so to speak, in this
discussion/debate.

Edwina
 On Fri 10/09/21 10:13 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to
god.
 And I repeat - "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is one
of Peirce's cosmological outlines, perhaps the last that he wrote
(1908), and obviously does refer to God in its very title. Its
opening affirmation that God is "Really creator of all three
Universes of Experience" is clearly a cosmological assertion. 
 ET: Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is
self-organized as a process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic
correlation.
 His earlier outlines, such as "A Guess at the Riddle" (1887-8),
could be interpreted that way; but only by ignoring his later
outlines, including but not limited to "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God." Why not simply admit disagreement with Peirce's
explicitly stated belief that God as traditionally defined is the
real, personal, and transcendent creator of the universe? Why keep
insisting that he somehow meant something different from what his own
words plainly state? 
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:30 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS, list

1] I don't agree with you that Peirce rejects the concept that
prayer is a psychological action. Your statement that it is a
'universal human instinct' - is psychological.

2] Our species' natural instinct' is the capacity to reason, to
develop 'logical outlines/patterns/diagrams' of the world. This
capacity is found in all of life - from protoplasm to bees to man.
..which is why it is "in accordance with natures".

With regard to mankind - This capacity to reason is NOT a
knowledge-base but the capacity-to-develop-a knowledge base. Insects
don't have this capacity; they have the capacity to 'reason' and
interact but their knowledge base is heavily 'fixed' and innate. They
can't develop a new method of interacting with the world.  Man's
knowledge base is not innate but is developed by the population over
time and stored in our social memories. The advantage of this method
of developing knowledge, of course, is its flexibility. Mankind can
change his knowledge and move from gathering seeds to planting fruit
trees.  

3] And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.
Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a
process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation. 

I think, as I've said before, that it is important to separate the
analysis of Mind/God [whatever the term one uses to examine the
ordering processes of our universe] from the analysis of Religion
within human populations. They are, in my view, not the same and to
merge the two can have disastrous societal and political results. 

Edwina
 On Thu 09/09/21 11:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among
ALL human populations.
 Okay, but clearly this is not Peirce's view. Again, he states
plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul
expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
  ET: That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned,
then, homo sapiens must function as a collective.
 On the contrary, according to Peirce, some of our "knowledge base"
is instinctive rather than learned. After all, "unless man have a
natural bent in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of
understanding nature, at all" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908)
 ET: As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't
refer

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.


And I repeat - "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is one of
Peirce's cosmological outlines, perhaps the last that he wrote (1908), and
obviously *does *refer to God in its very title. Its opening affirmation
that God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is
clearly a cosmological assertion.

ET: Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a
process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation.


His *earlier *outlines, such as "A Guess at the Riddle" (1887-8), *could *be
interpreted that way; but only by ignoring his *later *outlines, including
but not limited to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." Why not
simply admit disagreement with Peirce's explicitly stated belief that God
as traditionally defined is the real, personal, and transcendent creator of
the universe? Why keep insisting that he somehow meant something different
from what his own words plainly state?

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:30 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> 1] I don't agree with you that Peirce rejects the concept that prayer is a
> psychological action. Your statement that it is a 'universal human
> instinct' - is psychological.
>
> 2] Our species' natural instinct' is the capacity to reason, to develop
> 'logical outlines/patterns/diagrams' of the world. This capacity is found
> in all of life - from protoplasm to bees to man. ..which is why it is "in
> accordance with natures".
>
> With regard to mankind - This capacity to reason is NOT a knowledge-base
> but the capacity-to-develop-a knowledge base. Insects don't have this
> capacity; they have the capacity to 'reason' and interact but their
> knowledge base is heavily 'fixed' and innate. They can't develop a new
> method of interacting with the world.  Man's knowledge base is not innate
> but is developed by the population over time and stored in our social
> memories. The advantage of this method of developing knowledge, of course,
> is its flexibility. Mankind can change his knowledge and move from
> gathering seeds to planting fruit trees.
>
> 3] And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.
> Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a
> process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation.
>
> I think, as I've said before, that it is important to separate the
> analysis of Mind/God [whatever the term one uses to examine the ordering
> processes of our universe] from the analysis of Religion within human
> populations. They are, in my view, not the same and to merge the two can
> have disastrous societal and political results.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 09/09/21 11:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
> human populations.
>
>
> Okay, but clearly this is not Peirce's view. Again, he states plainly
> that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses
> consciousness of its relation to God.
>
> ET: That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then,
> homo sapiens must function as a collective.
>
>
> On the contrary, according to Peirce, some of our "knowledge base" is
> instinctive rather than learned. After all, "unless man have a natural bent
> in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of understanding nature, at
> all" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908)
>
> ET: As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
> 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
> Cause, etc].
>
>
> Only if one blatantly begs the question by insisting that "A Neglected
> Argument for the Reality of God" is somehow not an exposition of Peirce's
> cosmology. I obviously think that it is, given that I wrote a paper
> entitled "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
> Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:26 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> List
>>
>> Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
>> human populations.
>>
>> It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our
>> necessary functioning as a collective.
>>
>> That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then, homo
>> sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the site of both
>> stored and new knowledge.
>>
>> I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that human
>> beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex manner than
>> their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of the complexity and
>> magnitude of the universe leads to the development of communal narratives
>> about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact that our species lives as a
>> collective brings in awareness of the rules required for communal living;
>> ie, morality

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: These are a hodge podge of adjectives which would have to be broken
down and interpreted to answer the basic questions of "What' and 'Why'.


They are just my own summary of the lengthy quotations that I already
provided, where Peirce elaborates extensively on his definition of God.

ET: Therefore - just a list of adjectives doesn't answer my question.


Read the quotations again, along with the surrounding context. Read "A
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" (
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God).
Read all the manuscript drafts for that article and its additaments (R
841-844). Read my paper about one of those additaments (
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187). The answer is readily
available to any sincere inquirer.

ET: My own view of Peirce's idea of 'god' is his description of it as
'Mind' ...


Maintaining such a narrow interpretation requires deliberately ignoring the
many *other *characteristics that Peirce explicitly ascribes to God,
especially since he states plainly that they are "those Attributes which I
take to be most essential to the traditional notion." In other words,
he is *not
*seeking to introduce a novel or clever definition of God that is different
from the common understanding.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:17 AM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> JAS: "Hence, Peirce explicitly affirms the traditional attributes of 
> God--necessary
> being, creativity, spirit, mind, eternality, revelation, personality,
> communication, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, infinity,
> transcendence, and knowability."
>
> These are a hodge podge of adjectives which would have to be broken down
> and interpreted to answer the basic questions of "What' and 'Why'.
>
> For example - WHY is 'god' a 'necessary being'? And what does 'being' mean?
>
> What do the terms of 'personality' actually mean as a description of god?
> What about 'communication'? And 'knowability'?
>
> Same for 'spirit, creativity, revelation...etc, etc.
>
> The ONLY term I could see as having some capability of describing the
> 'what' and 'why' of the term of 'god', is Mind. And that, too, would have
> to be interpreted.
>
> Therefore - just a list of adjectives doesn't answer my question.
>
> Additionally,  since in my view, the idea of 'god' is a societal idea,
> i.e., strictly found among our species as far as I am aware, then, this
> idea has societal, political and psychological aspects to it. One of the
> best books for this is Jean Bethke Elshtain's 'Sovereignty: God, State and
> Self'.
>
> My own view of Peirce's idea of 'god' is his description of it as 'Mind'
> [numerous citations in his works] - and Peirce has extensive outlines of
> the nature and function of Mind in our universe. This concept of
> god-as-Mind is not related to religion, which is, in my view, a completely
> different aspect of our species and can be examined as societal and
> psychological.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 09/09/21 11:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: What is lacking in your long outline is Peirce's definition of 'God'.
>
>
> Gary R. already quoted CP 6.452, and cited CP 6.490 and CP 6.502-503; and
> I quoted CP 6.162 and CP 6.516. Peirce's definition of "God" is "Ens
> necessarium ... creator of all three Universes of Experience"; a
> "disembodied spirit, or pure mind" that "has its being out of time" and is
> "creative of thought"; the "analogue of a mind" that "can imbue a man with
> principles of conduct" through "contemplation and study of the
> physico-psychical universe"; "a personal God" such that "we must have a
> direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication
> with him"; and that which accounts for the universal human "instinct to
> pray" as the expression of "the soul's consciousness of its relation to
> God."  If that is still somehow insufficient, then perhaps his most
> comprehensive definition of "God" is in one of the manuscript drafts for "A
> Neglected Argument."
>
> CSP: By the proper name God, I shall refer to that Being who possesses
> those Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional
> notion; that is to say, while His nature is incomprehensible, He doubtless
> has Attributes called by proper extension of the terms Omniscience,
> Omnipotence, and Infinite Benignity. This statement excludes a finite god;
> although the Being of God would not, as far as I see, necessarily exclude
> that of a whole race of beings immensely superior to ourselves, such, for
> example, that the whole visible universe might be no more than a nucleolus
> in a single cell of the body of one of them. But I had better add that I do
> not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that
> Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of
> the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any
> exception

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

1] I don't agree with you that Peirce rejects the concept that
prayer is a psychological action. Your statement that it is a
'universal human instinct' - is psychological.

2] Our species' natural instinct' is the capacity to reason, to
develop 'logical outlines/patterns/diagrams' of the world. This
capacity is found in all of life - from protoplasm to bees to man.
..which is why it is "in accordance with natures".

With regard to mankind - This capacity to reason is NOT a
knowledge-base but the capacity-to-develop-a knowledge base. Insects
don't have this capacity; they have the capacity to 'reason' and
interact but their knowledge base is heavily 'fixed' and innate. They
can't develop a new method of interacting with the world.  Man's
knowledge base is not innate but is developed by the population over
time and stored in our social memories. The advantage of this method
of developing knowledge, of course, is its flexibility. Mankind can
change his knowledge and move from gathering seeds to planting fruit
trees. 

3] And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.
Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a
process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation. 

I think, as I've said before, that it is important to separate the
analysis of Mind/God [whatever the term one uses to examine the
ordering processes of our universe] from the analysis of Religion
within human populations. They are, in my view, not the same and to
merge the two can have disastrous societal and political results.

Edwina
 On Thu 09/09/21 11:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among
ALL human populations.
 Okay, but clearly this is not Peirce's view. Again, he states
plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul
expresses consciousness of its relation to God.
  ET: That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned,
then, homo sapiens must function as a collective.
 On the contrary, according to Peirce, some of our "knowledge base"
is instinctive rather than learned. After all, "unless man have a
natural bent in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of
understanding nature, at all" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908)
 ET: As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't
refer to 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved
Mover, First Cause, etc].
 Only if one blatantly begs the question by insisting that "A
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is somehow not an
exposition of Peirce's cosmology. I obviously think that it is, given
that I wrote a paper entitled "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on
Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" (
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187 [1]).
 Regards,
 Jon S.
 On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:26 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
human populations. 

It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our
necessary functioning as a collective.

That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then,
homo sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the
site of both stored and new knowledge.

I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that
human beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex
manner than their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of
the complexity and magnitude of the universe leads to the development
of communal narratives about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact
that our species lives as a collective brings in awareness of the
rules required for communal living; ie, morality - which is made
authoritative by appeals to stronger and 'higher' powers [gods]. 

There isn't a population in the world, as far as I know, that has
not developed an awareness and narrative of superior authorities than
the human being [whether it be spirits, multiple gods, singular god,
etc]. But my view is that this is due to the unique nature of the
human species' socially generated knowledge base and communal living
requirements. 

As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
Cause, etc].  

Edwina
 On Thu 09/09/21  6:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[3] sent:
 Gary R., Phyllis, List:
 Peirce did have this to say about prayer.
 CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact
constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is
found to be not only soulagement in prayer, but great spiritual good
and moral strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious,
or if not the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

JAS: "Hence, Peirce explicitly affirms the traditional attributes of
God--necessary being, creativity, spirit, mind, eternality,
revelation, personality, communication, omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence, infinity, transcendence, and knowability."

These are a hodge podge of adjectives which would have to be broken
down and interpreted to answer the basic questions of "What' and
'Why'.

For example - WHY is 'god' a 'necessary being'? And what does
'being' mean?

What do the terms of 'personality' actually mean as a description of
god? What about 'communication'? And 'knowability'? 

Same for 'spirit, creativity, revelation...etc, etc.

The ONLY term I could see as having some capability of describing
the 'what' and 'why' of the term of 'god', is Mind. And that, too,
would have to be interpreted.

Therefore - just a list of adjectives doesn't answer my question.

Additionally,  since in my view, the idea of 'god' is a societal
idea, i.e., strictly found among our species as far as I am aware,
then, this idea has societal, political and psychological aspects to
it. One of the best books for this is Jean Bethke Elshtain's
'Sovereignty: God, State and Self'. 

My own view of Peirce's idea of 'god' is his description of it as
'Mind' [numerous citations in his works] - and Peirce has extensive
outlines of the nature and function of Mind in our universe. This
concept of god-as-Mind is not related to religion, which is, in my
view, a completely different aspect of our species and can be
examined as societal and psychological. 

Edwina
 On Thu 09/09/21 11:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: What is lacking in your long outline is Peirce's definition of
'God'.
 Gary R. already quoted CP 6.452, and cited CP 6.490 and CP
6.502-503; and I quoted CP 6.162 and CP 6.516. Peirce's definition of
"God" is "Ens necessarium ... creator of all three Universes of
Experience"; a "disembodied spirit, or pure mind" that "has its being
out of time" and is "creative of thought"; the "analogue of a mind"
that "can imbue a man with principles of conduct" through
"contemplation and study of the physico-psychical universe"; "a
personal God" such that "we must have a direct perception of that
person and indeed be in personal communication with him"; and that
which accounts for the universal human "instinct to pray" as the
expression of "the soul's consciousness of its relation to God."  If
that is still somehow insufficient, then perhaps his most
comprehensive definition of "God" is in one of the manuscript drafts
for "A Neglected Argument."
 CSP: By the proper name God, I shall refer to that Being who
possesses those Attributes which I take to be most essential to the
traditional notion; that is to say, while His nature is
incomprehensible, He doubtless has Attributes called by proper
extension of the terms Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Infinite
Benignity. This statement excludes a finite god; although the Being
of God would not, as far as I see, necessarily exclude that of a
whole race of beings immensely superior to ourselves, such, for
example, that the whole visible universe might be no more than a
nucleolus in a single cell of the body of one of them. But I had
better add that I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in
Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the
world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the
world of all minds, without any exception whatever. For the argument
that I am to consider; and which, by the way, I will designate as
'The Neglected Argument,' would not be true of any other being than
God. But I do not, by 'God,' mean, with some writers, a being so
inscrutable that nothing at all can be known of Him. I suppose most
of our knowledge of Him must be by similitudes. Thus, He is so much
like a mind, and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an
Existent, or object that Exists, a thing subject to brute
constraints, and reacting with all other Existents,) and so opposed
in His Nature to an ideal possibility, that we may loosely say that
He is a Spirit, or Mind. (R 843:25-27[3-5], 1908) 

  Hence, Peirce explicitly affirms the traditional attributes of
God--necessary being, creativity, spirit, mind, eternality,
revelation, personality, communication, omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence, infinity, transcendence, and knowability.
  ET: Oh, and by the way, your insertion of 'sic' after Peirce's use
of the word 'existence' suggests that he too would sometimes use the
word in a 'common language' meaning rather than the strict use of it
only to refer to 2ns actuality.
 I already acknowledged that it is in his  later writings that Peirce
draws a sharp distinction between existence and reality, and applies
it specifically to God; for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
human populations.


Okay, but clearly this is not *Peirce's *view. Again, he states plainly
that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses
consciousness of its relation to God.

ET: That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then,
homo sapiens must function as a collective.


On the contrary, according to Peirce, *some *of our "knowledge base" is
instinctive rather than learned. After all, "unless man have a natural bent
in accordance with nature's, he has no chance of understanding nature, at
all" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908)

ET: As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
Cause, etc].


Only if one blatantly begs the question by insisting that "A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God" is somehow *not *an exposition of Peirce's
cosmology. I obviously think that it is, given that I wrote a paper
entitled "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187).

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:26 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL human
> populations.
>
> It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our
> necessary functioning as a collective.
>
> That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then, homo
> sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the site of both
> stored and new knowledge.
>
> I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that human
> beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex manner than
> their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of the complexity and
> magnitude of the universe leads to the development of communal narratives
> about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact that our species lives as a
> collective brings in awareness of the rules required for communal living;
> ie, morality - which is made authoritative by appeals to stronger and
> 'higher' powers [gods].
>
> There isn't a population in the world, as far as I know, that has not
> developed an awareness and narrative of superior authorities than the human
> being [whether it be spirits, multiple gods, singular god, etc]. But my
> view is that this is due to the unique nature of the human species'
> socially generated knowledge base and communal living requirements.
>
> As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
> 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
> Cause, etc].
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 09/09/21 6:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Gary R., Phyllis, List:
>
> Peirce did have this to say about prayer.
>
> CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact
> constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is found to
> be not only soulagement in prayer, but great spiritual good and moral
> strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious, or if not the
> prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer is nothing more than
> the expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to God,
> which is nothing more than precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name
> of God; so that, in that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of
> the Lord. (CP 6.516, c. 1906)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Phyllis, List,
>>
>> PC:  As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven
>> or hell.
>>
>> GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a
>> simple, natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much
>> good to say about most theologians, however, as it is they who confuse
>> simple faith with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.
>>
>> PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
>>
>> The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough
>> analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example  there are
>> others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast cosmological
>> context.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> “Let everything happen to you
>> Beauty and terror
>> Just keep going
>> No feeling is final”
>> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>> Gary Richmond
>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>> Communication Studies
>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: What is lacking in your long outline is Peirce's definition of 'God'.

Gary R. already quoted CP 6.452, and cited CP 6.490 and CP 6.502-503; and I
quoted CP 6.162 and CP 6.516. Peirce's definition of "God" is "*Ens
necessarium* ... creator of all three Universes of Experience"; a
"disembodied spirit, or pure mind" that "has its being out of time" and is
"creative of thought"; the "analogue of a mind" that "can imbue a man with
principles of conduct" through "contemplation and study of the
physico-psychical universe"; "a personal God" such that "we must have a
direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication
with him"; and that which accounts for the universal human "instinct to
pray" as the expression of "the soul's consciousness of its relation to
God." If that is still somehow insufficient, then perhaps his most
comprehensive definition of "God" is in one of the manuscript drafts for "A
Neglected Argument."

CSP: By the proper name God, I shall refer to that Being who possesses
those Attributes which I take to be most essential to the traditional
notion; that is to say, while His nature is incomprehensible, He doubtless
has Attributes called by proper extension of the terms Omniscience,
Omnipotence, and Infinite Benignity. This statement excludes a finite god;
although the Being of God would not, as far as I see, necessarily exclude
that of a whole race of beings immensely superior to ourselves, such, for
example, that the whole visible universe might be no more than a nucleolus
in a single cell of the body of one of them. But I had better add that I do
*not* mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that
Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of
the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any
exception whatever. For the argument that I am to consider; and which, by
the way, I will designate as 'The Neglected Argument,' would not be true of
any other being than God. But I do not, by 'God,' mean, with some writers,
a being so inscrutable that nothing at all can be known of Him. I suppose
most of our knowledge of Him must be by similitudes. Thus, He is so much
like a mind, and so little like a singular Existent (meaning by an
Existent, or object that Exists, a thing subject to brute constraints, and
reacting with all other Existents,) and so opposed in His Nature to an
ideal possibility, that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind. (R
843:25-27[3-5], 1908)

Hence, Peirce explicitly affirms the *traditional *attributes of God--necessary
being, creativity, spirit, mind, eternality, revelation, personality,
communication, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, infinity,
transcendence, and knowability.

ET: Oh, and by the way, your insertion of 'sic' after Peirce's use of the
word 'existence' suggests that he too would sometimes use the word in a
'common language' meaning rather than the strict use of it only to refer to
2ns actuality.

I already acknowledged that it is in his *later *writings that Peirce draws
a sharp distinction between existence and reality, and applies it
specifically to God; for example, in CP 6.495 where he says that "it would
be fetichism to say that God 'exists'," in R 641 where he says that "the
proposition that God Exists" is "a contradiction *in terminis*," and in R
843 as quoted above.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:14 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS, list
>
> What is lacking in your long outline is Peirce's definition of 'God'.
>
> You can take all the quotations you can find from Peirce's texts about
> believing in 'the reality of god' - but, the key definition is: 'what is
> Peirce's definition of 'god'. I have already provided some of the terms
> Peirce used as explanatory synonyms.
>
> Oh, and by the way, your insertion of 'sic' after Peirce's use of the word
> 'existence' suggests that he too would sometimes use the word in a 'common
> language' meaning rather than the strict use of it only to refer to 2ns
> actuality. Such usage doesn't violate 'Peircean purity' and needn't be
> 'pounced upon' as some kind of violation.
>
> Again - the key, in my view, is Peirce's analysis of WHAT is 'god' and
> 'WHY' is god. Not just a slew of quotations that assert that we should
> believe in 'god'.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 09/09/21 5:54 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: We can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
> to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
> continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me, defines the
> functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'.
>
>
> In contrast to this opinion, Peirce states plainly what his synechism
> entails about God.
>
> CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In
> considering personality, that philosophy is forced to accept the doctrine
> of a personal God; but in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-09 Thread Edwina Taborsky

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List

Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
human populations.

It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our
necessary functioning as a collective.

That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then,
homo sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the
site of both stored and new knowledge.

I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that
human beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex
manner than their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of
the complexity and magnitude of the universe leads to the development
of communal narratives about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact
that our species lives as a collective brings in awareness of the
rules required for communal living; ie, morality - which is made
authoritative by appeals to stronger and 'higher' powers [gods].

There isn't a population in the world, as far as I know, that has
not developed an awareness and narrative of superior authorities than
the human being [whether it be spirits, multiple gods, singular god,
etc]. But my view is that this is due to the unique nature of the
human species' socially generated knowledge base and communal living
requirements.

As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
Cause, etc].

Edwina
On Thu 09/09/21 6:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Gary R., Phyllis, List:
Peirce did have this to say about prayer.
CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact
constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is
found to be not only soulagement in prayer, but great spiritual good
and moral strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious,
or if not the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer
is nothing more than the expression, namely the soul's consciousness
of its relation to God, which is nothing more than precisely the
pragmatistic meaning of the name of God; so that, in that sense,
prayer is simply calling upon the name of the Lord. (CP 6.516, c.
1906)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
Phyllis, List,
PC: As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or
heaven or hell.
GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a
simple, natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't
much good to say about most theologians, however, as it is they who
confuse simple faith with, for example, notions of heaven and hell,
etc.
PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a
rough analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example
there are others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a
vast cosmological context.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York

Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-09 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list

What is lacking in your long outline is Peirce's definition of
'God'. 

You can take all the quotations you can find from Peirce's texts
about believing in 'the reality of god' - but, the key definition is:
'what is Peirce's definition of 'god'. I have already provided some of
the terms Peirce used as explanatory synonyms. 

Oh, and by the way, your insertion of 'sic' after Peirce's use of
the word 'existence' suggests that he too would sometimes use the
word in a 'common language' meaning rather than the strict use of it
only to refer to 2ns actuality. Such usage doesn't violate 'Peircean
purity' and needn't be 'pounced upon' as some kind of violation. 

Again - the key, in my view, is Peirce's analysis of WHAT is 'god'
and 'WHY' is god. Not just a slew of quotations that assert that we
should believe in 'god'.
Edwina
 On Thu 09/09/21  5:54 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET: We can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why'
refers to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic
synechist continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me, defines
the functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'.
 In contrast to this opinion, Peirce states plainly what  his
synechism entails about God.
 CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is
this. In considering personality, that philosophy is forced to accept
the doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, it
cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a
direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal
communication with him. Now, if that be the case, the question arises
how it is possible that the existence [ sic] of this being should ever
have been doubted by anybody. The only answer that I can at present
make is that facts that stand before our face and eyes and stare us
in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily
discerned. That has been remarked from time immemorial. (CP 6.162, EP
1:332-333, 1892)
 It is in his later writings that Peirce draws a sharp distinction
between existence and reality, and applies it specifically to God, as
Gary R. has already pointed out. He also comes to recognize
phenomenology/phaneroscopy as a science in its own right, and
identifies certain faculties that anyone who wishes to practice it
properly must cultivate. 
 CSP: The first and foremost is that rare faculty, the faculty of
seeing what stares one in the face, just as it presents itself,
unreplaced by any interpretation, unsophisticated by any allowance
for this or for that supposed modifying circumstance. This is the
faculty of the artist who sees for example the apparent colors of
nature as they appear. When the ground is covered by snow on which
the sun shines brightly except where shadows fall, if you ask any
ordinary man what its color appears to be, he will tell you white,
pure white, whiter in the sunlight, a little greyish in the shadow.
But that is not what is before his eyes that he is describing; it is
his theory of what ought to be seen. The artist will tell him that
the shadows are not grey but a dull blue and that the snow in the
sunshine is of a rich yellow. That artist's observational power is
what is most wanted in the study of phenomenology. (CP 5.41-42, EP
2:147, 1903) 
 Eventually, he acknowledges that such "philosophical observation" is
even more difficult than that of the artist.
 CSP: To assume, however, that the observational part of philosophy,
because it is not particularly laborious, is therefore easy, is a
dreadful mistake, into which the student is very apt to fall, and
which gives the death-blow to any possibility of his success in this
study. It is, on the contrary, extremely difficult to bring our
attention to elements of experience which are continually present.
For we have nothing in experience with which to contrast them; and
without contrast, they cannot excite our attention. We can only
contrast them with imaginary states of things; but even what we
imagine is but a crazy-quilt of bits snipped off from actual
experiences. The result is that roundabout devices have to be
resorted to, in order to enable us to perceive what stares us in the
face with a glare that, once noticed, becomes almost oppressive with
its insistency. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to render
philosophical observation difficult--much more difficult, for example,
than the kind of observation which the painter has to exercise. (CP
1.134, c. 1905) 
 However, this is in the context of "scientific study," where "one's
observations and reflections are allowed to specialize themselves"
(CP 6.459, EP 2:436, 1908). By contrast, "let religious meditation be
allowed to grow up spontaneously out of Pure Play without any breach
of continuity; and the Muser will retain the perfect candor proper

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Gary R., Phyllis, List:

Peirce did have this to say about prayer.

CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact
constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is found to
be not only *soulagement *in prayer, but great spiritual good and moral
strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious, or if not the
prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer is nothing more than
the expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to God,
which is nothing more than precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name
of God; so that, in that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of
the Lord. (CP 6.516, c. 1906)

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Phyllis, List,
>
> PC: As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or
> hell.
>
> GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a simple,
> natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much good to
> say about most theologians, however, as it is they who confuse simple faith
> with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.
>
> PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
>
> The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough
> analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example  there are
> others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast cosmological
> context.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List:

ET: We can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me, defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'.


In contrast to this opinion, Peirce states plainly what *his *synechism
entails about God.

CSP: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In
considering personality, that philosophy is forced to accept the doctrine
of a personal God; but in considering communication, it cannot but admit
that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct perception of that
person and indeed be in personal communication with him. Now, if that be
the case, the question arises how it is possible that the existence [*sic*]
of this being should ever have been doubted by anybody. The only answer
that I can at present make is that facts that stand before our face and
eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones
most easily discerned. That has been remarked from time immemorial. (CP
6.162, EP 1:332-333, 1892)


It is in his later writings that Peirce draws a sharp distinction between
existence and reality, and applies it specifically to God, as Gary R. has
already pointed out. He also comes to recognize phenomenology/phaneroscopy
as a science in its own right, and identifies certain faculties that anyone
who wishes to practice it properly must cultivate.

CSP: The first and foremost is that rare faculty, the faculty of seeing
what stares one in the face, just as it presents itself, unreplaced by any
interpretation, unsophisticated by any allowance for this or for that
supposed modifying circumstance. This is the faculty of the artist who sees
for example the apparent colors of nature as they appear. When the ground
is covered by snow on which the sun shines brightly except where shadows
fall, if you ask any ordinary man what its color appears to be, he will
tell you white, pure white, whiter in the sunlight, a little greyish in the
shadow. But that is not what is before his eyes that he is describing; it
is his theory of what ought to be seen. The artist will tell him that the
shadows are not grey but a dull blue and that the snow in the sunshine is
of a rich yellow. That artist's observational power is what is most wanted
in the study of phenomenology. (CP 5.41-42, EP 2:147, 1903)


Eventually, he acknowledges that such "philosophical observation" is even *more
*difficult than that of the artist.

CSP: To assume, however, that the observational part of philosophy, because
it is not particularly laborious, is therefore easy, is a dreadful mistake,
into which the student is very apt to fall, and which gives the death-blow
to any possibility of his success in this study. It is, on the contrary,
extremely difficult to bring our attention to elements of experience which
are continually present. For we have nothing in experience with which to
contrast them; and without contrast, they cannot excite our attention. We
can only contrast them with imaginary states of things; but even what we
imagine is but a crazy-quilt of bits snipped off from actual experiences.
The result is that roundabout devices have to be resorted to, in order to
enable us to perceive what stares us in the face with a glare that, once
noticed, becomes almost oppressive with its insistency. This circumstance
alone would be sufficient to render philosophical observation
difficult--much more difficult, for example, than the kind of observation
which the painter has to exercise. (CP 1.134, c. 1905)


However, this is in the context of "scientific study," where "one's
observations and reflections are allowed to specialize themselves" (CP
6.459, EP 2:436, 1908). By contrast, "let religious meditation be allowed
to grow up spontaneously out of Pure Play without any breach of continuity;
and the Muser will retain the perfect candor proper to Musement" (CP 6.458,
EP 2:436). That is why the reality of God "should be obvious to all minds,
high and low alike, that should earnestly strive to find the truth of the
matter" (CP 6.457, EP 2:435). In other words ...

CSP: 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*. Meantime, for all those who have not
yet themselves received that illumination, testimony to that effect lies
open;--testimony stupendous in volume, and moreover quite unopposed if,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List,

ET: As for the framework that I use - I have developed it over the years,
and consider that it is a genuine and  valid outline of Peircean semiosis.

I disagree; but I'll no longer 'debate' it with you.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:27 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R, List
>
> Now - you are reducing the meaning of 'debate' to one that is the opposite
> of 'discussion'. I don't use these terms the same way that you do. [And I
> do know others on this list who have a deep need to 'be right' and thus,
> fit in with your definition of 'debate].
>
> And frankly - if we are 'discussing' an issue - then, what is the point if
> all it means is that you lay out your points of view, and I lay out my
> points of view -- just present them...and walk off into the night. I think
> that debate/discussion go together. You are certainly trying to convince me
> of the validity of your opinions - and vice versa. We both know that we
> won't achieve this - but this doesn't prevent us from trying!
>
> As for 'input/output' - that's hardly unique to me but is used by other
> Peircean semioticians - as I've pointed out before. Plus - I think it's
> vital to expand the use of the Peircean framework into other fields - and
> into the modern world - and the use of such terms is a key to this agenda
> because it uses the terms of these other disciplines - to show how these
> disciplines are actually using a Peircean framework - and can expand this
> framework for further research in those disciplines.
>
>  This doesn't mean that Peirce is 'behind the times'; it means that his
> analytic framework fits in perfectly with modern research in biology,
> physics, chemistry, AI, information theory, economics - and indeed, if used
> [using the terms understood by these disciplines] can expand the
> understandings of our world - within these other disciplines.
>
> As for the framework that I use - I have developed it over the years, and
> consider that it is a genuine and  valid outline of Peircean semiosis.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 10:04 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Phyllis, List,
>
> Don't worry about me; I can take care of myself.
>
> It seems to me that Edwina much prefers what she calls 'debate' to
> 'discussion' -- one side wins the debate and the other loses, and I always
> know what side of the 'debate' I'll be on.
>
> I try to be reasonable, ask, for recent example, for reasonable
> terminology in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing
> between 'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But the
> problem, it turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that case, that I'm
> the problem: I'm too concerned about,  terminology, and get "hung up" on
> it as the English expression goes. It seems like a kind of 'fault' on my
> part and she apparently sees no responsibility in such matters, so I should
> already know what she meant to say; or I've got to figure out what she
> means.
>
> And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the topics
> which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's, not that I
> haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I find her
> input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's semeiotic views
> more than reasonable and worthy of further development, well from her
> perspective, that's my problem. He and I are apparently "behind the times."
>
> I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
> producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in and
> says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the highway," well
> what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has been one of my major
> challenges as List moderator.
>
> On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence and
> her considerable professional accomplishments.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator)
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right
>> about Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are
>> attacking him.
>> Phyllis
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>>
>>> Gary R, List
>>>
>>> My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
>>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>>> point of the argument.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List

Now - you are reducing the meaning of 'debate' to one that is the
opposite of 'discussion'. I don't use these terms the same way that
you do. [And I do know others on this list who have a deep need to
'be right' and thus, fit in with your definition of 'debate]. 

And frankly - if we are 'discussing' an issue - then, what is the
point if all it means is that you lay out your points of view, and I
lay out my points of view -- just present them...and walk off into
the night. I think that debate/discussion go together. You are
certainly trying to convince me of the validity of your opinions -
and vice versa. We both know that we won't achieve this - but this
doesn't prevent us from trying!

As for 'input/output' - that's hardly unique to me but is used by
other Peircean semioticians - as I've pointed out before. Plus - I
think it's vital to expand the use of the Peircean framework into
other fields - and into the modern world - and the use of such terms
is a key to this agenda because it uses the terms of these other
disciplines - to show how these disciplines are actually using a
Peircean framework - and can expand this framework for further
research in those disciplines.

 This doesn't mean that Peirce is 'behind the times'; it means that
his analytic framework fits in perfectly with modern research in
biology, physics, chemistry, AI, information theory, economics - and
indeed, if used [using the terms understood by these disciplines] can
expand the understandings of our world - within these other
disciplines. 

As for the framework that I use - I have developed it over the
years, and consider that it is a genuine and  valid outline of
Peircean semiosis.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21 10:04 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Phyllis, List,
 Don't worry about me; I can take care of myself.
 It seems to me that Edwina much prefers what she calls 'debate' to
'discussion' -- one side wins the debate and the other loses, and I
always know what side of the 'debate' I'll be on.  
 I try to be reasonable, ask, for recent example, for reasonable
terminology in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing
between 'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But
the problem, it turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that
case, that I'm the problem: I'm too concerned about,  terminology,
and get "hung up" on it as the English expression goes. It seems like
a kind of 'fault' on my part and she apparently sees no responsibility
in such matters, so I should already know what she  meant to say; or
I've got to figure out what she means.
 And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the
topics which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's,
not that I haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I
find her input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's
semeiotic views more than reasonable and worthy of further
development, well from her perspective, that's my problem. He and I
are apparently "behind the times." 
 I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in
and says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the
highway," well what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has
been one of my major challenges as List moderator.
  On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence
and her considerable professional accomplishments. 
 Best,
 Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator) 
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson  wrote:
 Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right
about Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are
attacking him. Phyllis
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R, List

My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage.  

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

I thought this was a discussion list, not debate. I am very uncomfortable
with argumentation. I am not willing to be a party to that behavior.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 7:08 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Phyllis, List
>
> I'm not in the least attacking Gary R personally! I'm debating his
> argument - with which I disagree. That's a huge difference.
>
> Surely we, on this list, can debate an issue without also bringing in our
> own 'persons' into the argument.
>
> But I see no reason why debate about issues can't include disagreement
> with the other person's point of view and analysis!
>
> If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we 'like' the
> person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds like politics to me!
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 9:42 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about
> Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking
> him.
> Phyllis
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Gary R, List
>>
>> My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
>> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
>> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
>> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
>> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
>> linguistic usage.
>>
>> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to
>> say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not
>> an argument.
>>
>> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
>> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
>> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
>> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
>> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>>
>> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
>> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
>> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
>> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>>
>> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
>> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
>> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
>> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
>> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
>> develop commonalities [synechism].
>>
>> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
>> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
>> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
>> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
>> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
>> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
>> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
>> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
>> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina, List,
>>
>> ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
>> refers to 'reality'
>>
>> GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
>> 'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a discussion
>> concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be more careful with
>> your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
>> which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.
>>
>> ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.
>>
>> GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
>> refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the term
>> 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even Peirce's
>> suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
>>
>> I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react
>> with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
>> would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)
>>
>> And that is all.
>>
>> ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
>> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
>> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
>> analyze or explain 'why' such

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Phyllis, List

I'm not in the least attacking Gary R personally! I'm debating his
argument - with which I disagree. That's a huge difference.

Surely we, on this list, can debate an issue without also bringing
in our own 'persons' into the argument.

But I see no reason why debate about issues can't include
disagreement with the other person's point of view and analysis!

If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we
'like' the person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds
like politics to me!

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  9:42 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right
about Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are
attacking him.Phyllis
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R, List

My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage.  

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of
'god' is higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or
whatever! They all refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many
times before - to Peirce, 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human
species.  

I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' -
since the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism -
none of which have anything to do with what I see as the
'force'/functionality of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.

I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to
tell me that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a
confusing term, since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically
loaded with meanings that have absolutely no relevance to what I
understand as agapism - which is the 'tendency of organisms of
mind/matter to connect, network, interact, develop commonalities
[synechism]. 

As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree -
I brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose'
and 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what
YOU mean by 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the
only purpose of matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of
energy, which is accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity
of matter/mind - and I don't attribute any morality to this. Morality
is important in our human societies - since we lack innate knowledge -
but- it is an issue for sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and
religious systems. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [2]
sent:
 Edwina, List, 
  ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my
comment refers to 'reality' 
GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a
discussion concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be
more careful with your choice of words. In short, the burden is on
you to choose terminology which best expresses your thinking in the
matter, not on me to guess it. 
ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is
not relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does,
that to refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the
term 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even
Peirce's suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of
"react with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in
that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

 And that is all.

ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations
in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

 GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the
singular reality which is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List,

Don't worry about me; I can take care of myself.

It seems to me that Edwina much prefers what she calls 'debate' to
'discussion' -- one side wins the debate and the other loses, and I always
know what side of the 'debate' I'll be on.

I try to be reasonable, ask, for recent example, for reasonable terminology
in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing between
'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But the problem, it
turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that case, that *I'm the
problem*: I'm too concerned about,  terminology, and get "hung up" on it as
the English expression goes. It seems like a kind of 'fault' on my part and
she apparently sees no responsibility in such matters, so I should already
know what she *meant* to say; or I've got to figure out what *she* means.

And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the topics
which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's, not that I
haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I find her
input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's semeiotic views
more than reasonable and worthy of further development, well from her
perspective, that's my problem. He and I are apparently "behind the times."

I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in and
says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the highway," well
what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has been one of my major
challenges as List moderator.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence and her
considerable professional accomplishments.

Best,

Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator)

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about
> Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking
> him.
> Phyllis
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Gary R, List
>>
>> My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
>> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
>> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
>> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
>> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
>> linguistic usage.
>>
>> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to
>> say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not
>> an argument.
>>
>> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
>> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
>> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
>> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
>> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>>
>> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
>> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
>> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
>> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>>
>> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
>> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
>> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
>> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
>> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
>> develop commonalities [synechism].
>>
>> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
>> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
>> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
>> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
>> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
>> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
>> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
>> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
>> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina, List,
>>
>> ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
>> refers

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about
Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking
him.
Phyllis

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R, List
>
> My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
> linguistic usage.
>
> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to say
> that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not an
> argument.
>
> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>
> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>
> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
> develop commonalities [synechism].
>
> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List,
>
> ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
> refers to 'reality'
>
> GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
> 'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a discussion
> concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be more careful with
> your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
> which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.
>
> ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
> relevant.
>
> GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
> refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the term
> 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even Peirce's
> suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
>
> I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react with
> the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
> would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)
>
> And that is all.
>
> ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
> analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really creator
> of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the singular reality
> which is God. Of course I can't be expected to present in an email
> message anything analyzing or explaining " 'why' such a creation
> emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does"  (btw, 'force' is also
> associated by Peirce with 2ns, not 3ns, continuity, etc.)
>
> But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
> considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce has in
> mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his semeiotic and
> cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's essay, " A
> Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God
> 
> ."

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Phyllis, list

Yes - I agree; Peirce wasn't focused on the sociological aspect of
'god', but the term, as used among human behaviour, IS focused around
the sociological aspects.

I don't, however, see that his outline of god was on the conduct of
human behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural
world - and in human understanding of our world.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:57 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven
or hell. His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Ben, list:

I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of
God: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being
and the Grand Designer.

These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions
based on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change
exists; that causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of
time - leads one to wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so
on.

That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is
that is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or
'reasoning and organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another
issue - since it adds in dimensions of experience that have nothing
to do with 'Mind'...such as worship, devotion, the narratives of
heaven/hell and morality. These other issues, which are attributes of
an organized religion, are sociological rather than philosophical in
nature. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com [2] sent:
Edwina, list, 

Edwina wrote,

Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition 
   of 'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a
creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does.
When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A
Neglected Argument   for the Reality of God", he is referencing a
very old idea, from   Aquinas or some other Scholastic
philosopher, that God's reality   does not require explanation, a
"why", He does not need it,   because (at least in the
monotheistic version) God is necessary,   not contingent. I.e.,
God causes the rest of things but nothing   causes God and
nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is   already
necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back to   Aristotle
at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic. 

Best, Ben On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  Gary R, List I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence'
in my comment refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term
of 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition! Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of
the three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of
'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation
emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does. Peirce often
referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'  and even
'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We can see from these
terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers to the
'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.  As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but evolution
certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of evolution is to
increase complexity via diversity and networking of matter. The
FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the dissipation
of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not Neo-Darwinism, which
is a mechanical, random and almost pointless process. This evolution
has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits
in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'. But there is
no utopian Finale! Edwina  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:  Edwina, List,ET: A problem I have
with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack of a clear
definition of that term.  As has been noted in this forum many times,
Peirce thought that to refer to the "existence" of God, that ia  to
speak as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List

My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage. 

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of
'god' is higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or
whatever! They all refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many
times before - to Peirce, 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human
species. 

I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' -
since the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism -
none of which have anything to do with what I see as the
'force'/functionality of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.

I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to
tell me that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a
confusing term, since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically
loaded with meanings that have absolutely no relevance to what I
understand as agapism - which is the 'tendency of organisms of
mind/matter to connect, network, interact, develop commonalities
[synechism].

As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree -
I brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose'
and 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what
YOU mean by 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the
only purpose of matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of
energy, which is accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity
of matter/mind - and I don't attribute any morality to this. Morality
is important in our human societies - since we lack innate knowledge -
but- it is an issue for sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and
religious systems.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List,
  ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my
comment refers to 'reality' 
GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a
discussion concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be
more careful with your choice of words. In short, the burden is on
you to choose terminology which best expresses your thinking in the
matter, not on me to guess it. 
ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is
not relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does,
that to refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the
term 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even
Peirce's suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of
"react with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in
that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

 And that is all.

ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations
in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

 GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the
singular reality which is God. Of course I can't be expected to
present in an email message anything analyzing or explaining " 'why'
such a creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does" 
(btw, 'force' is also associated by Peirce with 2ns, not 3ns,
continuity, etc.) 

But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce
has in mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his
semeiotic and cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's
essay, " A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
Reality of God."  https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1
[1] 
From the Abstract: 

In one [of the two additaments with which Peirce concluded the N.A.
but which were not published in the CP] he linked the hypothesis of
God's Reality to his entire theory of logic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List,

ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
refers to 'reality'

GR: Since it is well known that Peirce clearly distinguishes between
'existence' and 'reality', one would think that especially in a discussion
concerning the putative reality (of God that you would be more careful with
your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.

ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
refer to God as existing is fetishistic *if* one employs the term
'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is "*even Peirce's*
suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?

I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react with
the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

And that is all.

ET: Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
'force/god' actually does.

GR: But it is not *any* 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the singular reality
which is God. Of course I can't be expected to present in an email message
anything analyzing or explaining " 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does" (btw, 'force' is also associated by Peirce
with 2ns, not 3ns, continuity, etc.)

But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce has in
mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his semeiotic and
cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's essay, "A Neglected
Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God

." https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1

From the Abstract:

In one [of the two additaments with which Peirce concluded the N.A. but
which were not published in the CP] he linked the hypothesis of God's
Reality to his entire theory of logic as semeiotic. . . In the other, he
offered a final outline of his cosmology, in which the Reality of God as
Ens necessarium is indispensable to both the origin and order of our
existing universe of Signs.

ET:  But I am satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as
analogies.

GR: That's fine if one doesn't forget that they are *only* analogies. As he
writes at 6.502: "that analogue of a mind -- *for it is impossible to say
that any human attribute is literally applicable* -- is what [the
pragmaticist] means by "God" (emphasis added).
ET: As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!]
GR: No doubt your definition would differ from mine; and Peirce's as well
if you read "Evolutionary Love" within the scientific context in which it
is framed.

ET: This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in
my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'.
GR: Well, good! For 'agapism' IS evolutionary love.

. . . the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical
necessity, and *the
law of love *are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of
*tychism*, *anancism*, and *agapism (*1893 | Evolutionary Love | CP 6.302;
emphasis added)

ET: But there is no utopian Finale!
GR: A "utopian Finale!" Who suggested any such thing? Certainly not I;
certainly not Peirce.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R, List
>
> I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment refers
> to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of 'existence' to refer
> to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!  Therefore, your- and even
> Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not relevant.6.495.  But, the term of
> 'reality' still does not provide a definition!
>
> Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
> analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'
> and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List,

PC: As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or
hell.

GR: I think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a simple,
natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much good to
say about most theologians, however, as it is they who confuse simple faith
with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.

PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.

The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough
analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example  there are
others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast cosmological
context.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or
> hell. His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Ben, list:
>>
>> I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God:
>> Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being and the
>> Grand Designer.
>>
>> These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions based
>> on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
>> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
>> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>>
>> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that
>> is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
>> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
>> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
>> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
>> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
>> rather than philosophical in nature.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina, list,
>>
>> Edwina wrote,
>>
>> Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
>> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
>> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
>> analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
>> 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
>> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
>> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
>> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
>> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
>> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
>> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
>> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gary R, List
>>
>>  I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
>> refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
>> 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
>> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
>> definition!
>>
>>  Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
>> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
>> 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
>> does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
>> this 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>>  Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
>> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
>> can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
>> to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
>> continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
>> functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
>> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>>
>>  As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
>> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
>> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
>> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
>> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
>> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
>> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

By human behavior I mean that Peirce applied the pragmatic maxim to the
meaning of God. He also used St. John's synonym God is love. So you can
substitute the term, love,  for God and shape behavior accordingly. I'd
keep this love term in mind if you read the additiment, which I recommend.
It is a topic all it's own.
Also, it fits into levels 4 & 5 of his ethical classes of motives.





On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:02 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Phyllis, list
>
> Yes - I agree; Peirce wasn't focused on the sociological aspect of 'god',
> but the term, as used among human behaviour, IS focused around the
> sociological aspects.
>
> I don't, however, see that his outline of god was on the conduct of human
> behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural world - and
> in human understanding of our world.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:57 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or
> hell. His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
>
>> Ben, list:
>>
>> I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God:
>> Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being and the
>> Grand Designer.
>>
>> These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions based
>> on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
>> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
>> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>>
>> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that
>> is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
>> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
>> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
>> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
>> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
>> rather than philosophical in nature.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina, list,
>>
>> Edwina wrote,
>>
>> Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
>> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
>> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
>> analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
>> 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
>> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
>> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
>> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
>> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
>> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
>> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
>> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gary R, List
>>
>>  I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
>> refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
>> 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
>> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
>> definition!
>>
>>  Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
>> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
>> 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
>> does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
>> this 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>>  Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
>> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
>> can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
>> to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
>> continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
>> functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
>> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>>
>>  As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
>> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
>> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
>> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
>> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
>> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
>> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
>> process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell.
His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Ben, list:
>
> I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God:
> Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being and the
> Grand Designer.
>
> These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions based
> on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>
> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that is
> what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
> rather than philosophical in nature.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, list,
>
> Edwina wrote,
>
> Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in 1ns,
> 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it does not
> analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>
> Best, Ben
> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
>
>
>   Gary R, List
>
>   I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
> refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
> 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
> definition!
>
>   Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
> universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
> 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
> does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
> this 'force/god' actually does.
>
>   Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
> can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
> to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
> continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
> functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>
>   As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
> process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
> agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
> complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!
>
>   Edwina
>  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
> sent:
>  Edwina, List,
>   ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god'
> is the lack of a clear definition of that term.
>
>   As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to
> refer to the "existence" of God, that ia  to speak as if God were but
> a thing among other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
> So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
> for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
> Reality of God."
>  As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
>   CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
> definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
> creator of all three Universes of Experience.
>   ET: But, I do not doubt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

Ben, list:

I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of
God: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, the Absolute Being
and the Grand Designer.

These are essentially ' a posteriori', in that they are conclusions
based on observations of the world; ie, that 'movement and change
exists; that causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of
time - leads one to wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so
on.

That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is
that is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or
'reasoning and organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another
issue - since it adds in dimensions of experience that have nothing
to do with 'Mind'...such as worship, devotion, the narratives of
heaven/hell and morality. These other issues, which are attributes of
an organized religion, are sociological rather than philosophical in
nature.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
Edwina, list, 

Edwina wrote,

Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the
three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition 
   of 'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a
creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does.
When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A
Neglected Argument   for the Reality of God", he is referencing a
very old idea, from   Aquinas or some other Scholastic
philosopher, that God's reality   does not require explanation, a
"why", He does not need it,   because (at least in the
monotheistic version) God is necessary,   not contingent. I.e.,
God causes the rest of things but nothing   causes God and
nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is   already
necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back to   Aristotle
at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic. 

Best, Ben On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  Gary R, List I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence'
in my comment refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term
of 'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition! Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of
the three universes of experience [the formations of matter and
relations in 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of
'god' for it does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation
emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does. Peirce often
referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'  and even
'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We can see from these
terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers to the
'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.  As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but evolution
certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of evolution is to
increase complexity via diversity and networking of matter. The
FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the dissipation
of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not Neo-Darwinism, which
is a mechanical, random and almost pointless process. This evolution
has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits
in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'. But there is
no utopian Finale! Edwina  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:  Edwina, List,ET: A problem I have
with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack of a clear
definition of that term.  As has been noted in this forum many times,
Peirce thought that to refer to the "existence" of God, that ia  to
speak as if God were but a thing among other things, was fetishistic
(see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906). So the title of his 1908 essay is
decidedly not "A Neglected Argument for the Existence of God" but,
rather, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God."   As for the
definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:   CSP: THE
word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the definable
proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience.  ET: But, I do not doubt
that our universe operates as a "MIND', with all the attributes of
abduction, induction and deduction that can be used to describe the
functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I consider that this is
also Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Ben Udell


Edwina, list,

Edwina wrote,

   Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
   universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
   1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
   does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
   this 'force/god' actually does.

When Peirce calls and defines God as THE /ens necessarium/ in "A 
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old 
idea, from Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's 
reality does not require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, 
because (at least in the monotheistic version) God is necessary, not 
contingent. I.e., God causes the rest of things but nothing causes God 
and nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is already necessary, 
not contingent.  I guess it goes back to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I 
speak as an agnostic.


Best, Ben

On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  


Gary R, List

I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!!
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition!

Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.

As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!

Edwina
  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary richmondgary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
  Edwina, List,
   ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god'
is the lack of a clear definition of that term.

As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to
refer to the "existence" of God, that ia  to speak as if God were but
a thing among other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God."
  As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
   CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.
   ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that
can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view -
and I consider that this is also Peirce's view
   If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the
world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course,
the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism.
There are indeed many.
   ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the
Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of
energy]; no inherent morality etc.
  Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce.
See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893),
the last in The Monist series. Joseph Ransdell described it as " An
impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution,
set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was
coming into ascendance."
  Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any
atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who
do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of
theism.
  For anyone who wants to delve deeper into

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Helmut, List:

According to Peirce, within the specific context of retroduction, a
conjecture or hypothesis is *plausible *whenever an inquirer is led to
regard it with favor; and "this acceptance ranges, in different cases,--and
reasonably so,--from a mere expression of it in the interrogative mood, as
a question meriting attention and reply, up through all appraisals of
Plausibility, to uncontrollable inclination to believe" (CP 6.469, EP
2:441, 1908). Rather than Ockham's razor, he connects it with Galileo's *il
lume naturale*, according to which "of two hypotheses, the *simpler *is to
be preferred"--not "the *logically* simpler" in Ockham's sense, "the one
that adds the least to what has been observed," but "the simpler hypothesis
in the sense of the more facile and natural, the one that instinct
suggests" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:50 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Jon, Gary R., List
>
> I think, plausibility is an interesting dimension. Is it the result of
> Ockham´s razor? Obviously it is a dimension of abduction/retroduction, and
> has to do with counting backwards: The biggest plausibility is what
> requires the least number of explanations. Like the concept of God.
> Plausibility is not probabilty. Probability is a dimension of induction,
> and is about counting forwards, and comparing the figures. Plausibility: Is
> it a measure, though it does not have a calculatable value, of possibility?
> But without a value it is not a measure, like probability is. Rather an
> estimation? A phenomenon? A positive-logic-thing? Then positive logic needs
> negations too: It negates higher numbers of explanations for a lower
> number, mostly 1, of experienced qualities. Is that phaneroscopic
> acceptance?  While negative logic negates impossibilities one by one, and
> acceptance is based on these negations.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List

I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
refers to 'reality' - and I wasn't at all using the term of
'existence' to refer to a 'material entity' in a mode of 2ns!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition!

Now, you can say that this 'reality' is 'the creator' of the three
universes of experience [the formations of matter and relations in
1ns, 2ns, 3ns] but this, to me, is not a definition of 'god' for it
does not analyze or explain 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. We
can see from these terms that the answer to 'what' and 'why' refers
to the 'organization' of matter-as-form, this hylomorphic synechist
continuity of matter in our universe. This, to me,  defines the
functionality of what some people refer to as 'god'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies. 

As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List, 
  ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god'
is the lack of a clear definition of that term. 

As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to
refer to the "existence" of God, that ia  to speak as if God were but
a thing among other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God." 
 As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
  CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.   
  ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that
can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view -
and I consider that this is also Peirce's view  
  If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the
world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course,
the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism.
There are indeed many.
  ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the
Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of
energy]; no inherent morality etc.  
 Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce.
See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893),
the last in The Monist series. Joseph Ransdell described it as " An
impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution,
set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was
coming into ascendance." 
 Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any
atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who
do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of
theism. 
 For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the
reality of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic
definition of God (CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A
Neglected Argument (CP 6.490) 
 Best,
 Gary R
 “LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York 
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
List

A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is
the lack of a clear definition of that term.

As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically
- conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, List,

ET: A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the
lack of a clear definition of that term.

As has been noted in this forum many times, Peirce thought that to refer to
the "existence" of God, that ia to speak as if God were but a thing among
other things, was fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906). So the title of
his 1908 essay is decidedly *not* "A Neglected Argument for the *Existence*
of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the *Reality* of God."

As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:

CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.

ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND', with all
the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be used to
describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I consider that
this is also Peirce's view

If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the world would
he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course, the N.A. is hardly
the only place where he discusses his theism. There are indeed many.

ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc.

Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce. See,
for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893), the last
in *The Monist* series. Joseph Ransdell described it as "An impassioned and
lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution, set in sharp contrast
with the Social Darwinist conception which was coming into ascendance."

Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any atheist's
viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who do not share
that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of theism.

For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the reality
of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic definition of God
(CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument (CP
6.490)

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> List
>
> A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is the lack
> of a clear definition of that term.
>
> As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically
> - conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent within
> our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
> with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be
> used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I
> consider that this is also Peirce's view - is that the hylomorphic
> operation of matter and mind means that matter is always organized in its
> Form, such that it can both interact with other Forms of Matter, and
> replicate these Forms and interactions in continuity. This organization of
> interactions and continuity of material form is obviously a function of
> Mind. But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe;
> no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
> inherent morality etc.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Gary R., List:
>
> GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
> quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there
> being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put
> to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.
>
>
> There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
> God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
> notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
> the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
> very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
> self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
>
> GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
> experience.
>
>
> Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html),
> although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction
> followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its
> logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.
>
> CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

JS : although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction
followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its
logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.

Yes. Especially since surprise is a qualitative induction..


On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 9:48 AM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Gary R., List:
>
> GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
> quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there
> being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put
> to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.
>
>
> There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
> God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
> notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
> the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
> very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
> self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
>
> GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
> *experience*.
>
>
> Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html),
> although the *historical *order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction
> followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its 
> *logical
> *order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.
>
> CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the
> universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the
> force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the
> historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it
> finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call
> upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find
> Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to *il lume
> naturale*. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)
>
>
> Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon
> guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Phyllis, List,
>>
>> Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations
>> yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of
>> the reality of God and *not* some strictly scientific question put
>> to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.
>>
>> I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
>> scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
>> the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
>> using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
>> uses.
>>
>> However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
>> "retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In
>> that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
>> thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
>> that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
>> question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
>> singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
>> or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.
>>
>> So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
>> Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
>> own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
>> through that lengthy review with me.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> “Let everything happen to you
>> Beauty and terror
>> Just keep going
>> No feeling is final”
>> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
> l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Helmut Raulien

Jon, Gary R., List

I think, plausibility is an interesting dimension. Is it the result of Ockham´s razor? Obviously it is a dimension of abduction/retroduction, and has to do with counting backwards: The biggest plausibility is what requires the least number of explanations. Like the concept of God. Plausibility is not probabilty. Probability is a dimension of induction, and is about counting forwards, and comparing the figures. Plausibility: Is it a measure, though it does not have a calculatable value, of possibility? But without a value it is not a measure, like probability is. Rather an estimation? A phenomenon? A positive-logic-thing? Then positive logic needs negations too: It negates higher numbers of explanations for a lower number, mostly 1, of experienced qualities. Is that phaneroscopic acceptance? While negative logic negates impossibilities one by one, and acceptance is based on these negations.

Best, Helmut

08. September 2021 um 18:47 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:

Gary R., List:

GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.

There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).

GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from experience.

Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html), although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.

CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)

Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond wrote:

Phyllis, List,

Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.

I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general uses.

However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from experience.

So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

Gary Richmond

Philosophy and Critical Thinking

Communication Studies

LaGuardia College of the City University of New York

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List

A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is
the lack of a clear definition of that term.

As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically
- conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind.
That is, my view - and I consider that this is also Peirce's view -
is that the hylomorphic operation of matter and mind means that
matter is always organized in its Form, such that it can both
interact with other Forms of Matter, and replicate these Forms and
interactions in continuity. This organization of interactions and
continuity of material form is obviously a function of Mind. But
there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Gary R., List:
 GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday.
 There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the
hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in
accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which
includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific
inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility,
whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled
growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908). 
 GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
experience.
 Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[1]), although the historical order of inquiry is
abduction/retroduction followed by deduction and then induction,
there is a sense in which its  logical order is induction followed by
abduction/retroduction.
 CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that
the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders
itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially
inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its
logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven
in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its
instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern
science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55,
1898)
 Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully
soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond  wrote:
  Phyllis, List,
 Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday. 
 I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today,
namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to
cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free
for more general uses.  
 However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments
that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis
added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of
colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across,
or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some
likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and
so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question
regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or
retroduction is invariably from  experience.
 So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a
teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to
help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too
tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.
 Best,
 Gary R 
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York  


Links:
--
[1]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Gary R., List:

GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there
being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific question put
to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.

There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).

GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
*experience*.

Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html), although
the *historical *order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction followed by
deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its *logical *order
is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.

CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the
universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the
force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the
historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it
finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call
upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find
Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to *il lume
naturale*. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)

Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon
guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Phyllis, List,
>
> Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations
> yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of
> the reality of God and *not* some strictly scientific question put
> to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.
>
> I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
> scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
> the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
> using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
> uses.
>
> However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
> "retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In
> that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
> thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
> that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
> question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
> singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
> or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.
>
> So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
> Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
> own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
> through that lengthy review with me.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Phyllis, Gary R., List:

PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a
synonym for it.

GR:  Not so long ago we had a List discussion in which Jon Alan Schmidt
made a pretty strong case that Peirce -- at least in places -- uses the
terms 'abduction' and 'retroduction' synonymously.


Indeed, I cited Phyllis's article about this (
http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction)
where she claims that abduction "refers to a distinct form of logical
inference," while retroduction is "the form of a deliberate and overarching
logical method which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for
its full performance." As I said at the time, I find this unpersuasive
because "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is unambiguous in
identifying retroduction as "the First Stage of Inquiry," followed by
deduction and then induction (CP 6.468-473, EP 2:440-442, 1908). Moreover,
I have found only two places where Peirce uses both terms in the same
passage, and they are not consistent with the specific distinction that
Phyllis proposes.

CSP:  There are in science three fundamentally different kinds of
reasoning, Deduction (called by Aristotle συναγωγή or ἀναγωγή), Induction
(Aristotle's and Plato's ἐπαγωγή), and Retroduction (Aristotle's ἀπαγωγή,
but misunderstood because of corrupt text, and as misunderstood usually
translated *abduction*). (CP 1.65, c. 1896)

CSP:  This kind of reasoning is very often called *adopting a hypothesis
for the sake of its explanation of known facts* ...
This probable reasoning in the second figure is, I apprehend, what
Aristotle meant by ἀπαγωγή. There are strong reasons for believing that in
the chapter on the subject in the Prior Analytics, there occurred one of
those many obliterations in Aristotle's MS due to its century long exposure
to damp in a cellar, which the blundering Apellicon, the first editor,
filled up with the wrong word. Let me change but one word of the text, and
the meaning of the whole chapter is metamorphosed in such a way that it no
longer breaks the continuity of the train of Aristotle's thought, as in our
present text it does but so as to bring it into parallelism with another
passage, and to cause the two examples, like the generality of Aristotle's
examples, to represent reasonings current at his time, instead of being, as
our text makes them, the one utterly silly and other nearly as bad.
Supposing this view to be correct, ἀπαγωγή should be translated not by the
word *abduction*, as the custom of the translators is, but rather by
reduction or *retroduction*. In these lectures I shall generally call this
type of reasoning *retroductlon*. (NEM 4:183, RLT 140-141, 1898)


I find it to be quite clear here, as well as from the many texts where
Peirce uses only one word or the other, that he considers the two terms to
be effectively synonymous. "Abduction" is the usual and traditional
translation of Aristotle's *ἀπαγωγή*, which likewise also means
"kidnapping" in Greek, so he might have felt obliged to maintain it while
seeking to capitalize on the widespread interest in pragmatism during the
several years after William James first popularized it (and credited Peirce
with founding it) in 1898. However, he strongly suspected corruption of the
original text and believed that "retroduction" better captures what
Aristotle really intended.

The excerpts in the online Commens Dictionary support this interpretation,
suggesting that Peirce mainly uses "hypothesis" until the mid-1890s (
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/hypothesis-%5Bas-a-form-of-reasoning%5D),
then "retroduction" for the rest of that decade (
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/retroduction), and then "abduction"
from roughly 1901 to 1906 (http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/abduction).
The inclusion of so many texts that he wrote during those six years
accounts for the fact that CP has some 149 instances of
"abduction(s)/abductive(ly)" but only 58 of
"retroduction(s)/retroductive(ly)," while in EP 2 the tally is even more
lopsided at roughly 134 to 25.  Nevertheless, even within that time period
he plainly expresses dissatisfaction with "abduction."

CSP:  In what then does the soundness of argument consist?
In order to answer that question it is necessary to recognize three
radically different kinds of arguments which I signalized in 1867 and which
had been recognized by the logicians of the eighteenth century, although
those logicians quite pardonably failed to recognize the inferential
character of one of them. Indeed, I suppose that the three were given by
Aristotle in the *Prior Analytics*, although the unfortunate illegibility
of a single word in his manuscript and its replacement by a wrong word by
his first editor, the stupid [Apellicon]* has completely altered the sense
of the chapter on Abduction. At any rate, even if my conjecture is wrong,
and the text must stand as it is, still Aristotle, in that chapter on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List,

Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my quotations
yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis there being of
the reality of God and *not* some strictly scientific question put
to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of yesterday.

I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
uses.

However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
"retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In that
sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.

So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
through that lengthy review with me.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I described the functions of abduction vs retroduction based on the
> meaning of the prefixes. It sounds like we agree on the fundamentals of the
> differences.
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 7:40 PM Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Phyllis, List,
>>
>> PC: In NA, Peirce is describing what goes on before a normative
>> Abductive inference is made. This is the part that involves qualitative
>> explorations ending in a qualitative induction of surprise that leads to a
>> guess that is an abduction. This invisible part that is musing has its
>> origins in phenomenal explorations. This is, I believe the key to
>> identifying and norming abduction.
>>
>> GR: I agree.
>>
>> PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a
>> synonym for it.
>>
>>
>> GR: I'm glad you brought this up since I've known for some time now that
>> you see it this way. I see it somewhat differently, however.
>>
>> Not so long ago we had a List discussion in which Jon Alan Schmidt made a
>> pretty strong case that Peirce -- at least in places -- uses the terms
>> 'abduction' and 'retroduction' synonymously. As you do, I thought then and
>> I think now that they could be and ought to be profitably distinguished as
>> having two slightly different meanings, or at least somewhat different
>> connotations. However, I distinguish them in what I take to be the opposite
>> of the way in which you do.
>>
>> You say that "abduction is an aspect of retroduction" while,
>> contrariwise, I would contend that retroduction is an aspect of abduction.
>> Abduction seems to me to be the broader idea as it has its place in such
>> non-scientific areas as art creation and the like. Retroduction -- which in
>> the N.A. Peirce calls "the First Stage of Inquiry." And he remarks that
>> its characteristic formula of reasoning [is] . . . from consequent to
>> antecedent." Yet, more to your point, in that very same essay he remarks
>> that the advance of science "is  first laid by Retroduction alone, that
>> is to say, by the spontaneous conjectures of *instinctive reason*"
>> (emphasis added). "Instinctive reason" and "reasoning from consequent to
>> antecedent" are hardly identical!
>>
>> Later in that essay he again remarks that ". . . this mode of inference,
>> or, if you please, this step toward inference, in which an explanatory
>> hypothesis is first suggested, [I call] by the name of *retroduction*,
>> since *it regresses from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent*"
>> (emphasis added). He then adds this somewhat puzzling comment:
>>
>> CSP: The word “retroductive,” however, is surplusage [or as we might say
>> today, is superfluous]; for every hypothesis, however arbitrary, is
>> suggested by something observed, whether externally or internally and such
>> suggestion is, from a purely logical point of view, retroduction.
>>
>>
>> To my way of thinking, whether one sees retroduction as either more a
>> matter of informed 'guessing' or more as a logical move, 'an inference
>> from effect to cause', the key point, I think, is that the "guess" or
>> "inference" is the result of *experience*:
>>
>> CSP: . . . the stimulus to guessing, the hint of the conjecture, was
>> derived from experience.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

I described the functions of abduction vs retroduction based on the meaning
of the prefixes. It sounds like we agree on the fundamentals of the
differences.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 7:40 PM Gary Richmond  wrote:

> Phyllis, List,
>
> PC: In NA, Peirce is describing what goes on before a normative Abductive
> inference is made. This is the part that involves qualitative explorations
> ending in a qualitative induction of surprise that leads to a guess that is
> an abduction. This invisible part that is musing has its origins in
> phenomenal explorations. This is, I believe the key to identifying and
> norming abduction.
>
> GR: I agree.
>
> PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a
> synonym for it.
>
>
> GR: I'm glad you brought this up since I've known for some time now that
> you see it this way. I see it somewhat differently, however.
>
> Not so long ago we had a List discussion in which Jon Alan Schmidt made a
> pretty strong case that Peirce -- at least in places -- uses the terms
> 'abduction' and 'retroduction' synonymously. As you do, I thought then and
> I think now that they could be and ought to be profitably distinguished as
> having two slightly different meanings, or at least somewhat different
> connotations. However, I distinguish them in what I take to be the opposite
> of the way in which you do.
>
> You say that "abduction is an aspect of retroduction" while, contrariwise,
> I would contend that retroduction is an aspect of abduction. Abduction
> seems to me to be the broader idea as it has its place in such
> non-scientific areas as art creation and the like. Retroduction -- which in
> the N.A. Peirce calls "the First Stage of Inquiry." And he remarks that
> its characteristic formula of reasoning [is] . . . from consequent to
> antecedent." Yet, more to your point, in that very same essay he remarks
> that the advance of science "is  first laid by Retroduction alone, that
> is to say, by the spontaneous conjectures of *instinctive reason*"
> (emphasis added). "Instinctive reason" and "reasoning from consequent to
> antecedent" are hardly identical!
>
> Later in that essay he again remarks that ". . . this mode of inference,
> or, if you please, this step toward inference, in which an explanatory
> hypothesis is first suggested, [I call] by the name of *retroduction*,
> since *it regresses from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent*"
> (emphasis added). He then adds this somewhat puzzling comment:
>
> CSP: The word “retroductive,” however, is surplusage [or as we might say
> today, is superfluous]; for every hypothesis, however arbitrary, is
> suggested by something observed, whether externally or internally and such
> suggestion is, from a purely logical point of view, retroduction.
>
>
> To my way of thinking, whether one sees retroduction as either more a
> matter of informed 'guessing' or more as a logical move, 'an inference
> from effect to cause', the key point, I think, is that the "guess" or
> "inference" is the result of *experience*:
>
> CSP: . . . the stimulus to guessing, the hint of the conjecture, was
> derived from experience. The order of the march of suggestion in
> retroduction is from experience to hypothesis.
>
>
> And yet, as Peirce writes in a 1910 letter to Paul Carus, from the logical
> standpoint, "Hypothesis (or, as I now term it, *retroduction*) [is] an
> *inference**," *and he again defines retroduction as "reasoning from
> consequent to antecedent."
>
> 1910 [c.] | On the Three Kinds of Reasoning [R] | MS [R] 755:14
>
> That kind of reasoning by which we are more or less inclined to believe in
> a theory because it explains facts that without the theory would be very
> surprising is what I call Retroduction, or reasoning from consequent to
> antecedent. To understand the legitimacy of this kind of reasoning (often
> and often as it deceives us,) is to understand the legitimacy, the
> truth-leading power of all reasoning.
>
>
> And so, noting that retroduction is an inference in "scientific inquiry,"
> in a 1911 letter to J. H. Keller, Peirce remarks:
>
> CSP: A scientific inquiry must usually, if not always, begin with
> retroduction. An Induction can hardly be sound or at least is to be
> suspected usually, unless it has been preceded by a Retroductive reasoning
> to the same general effect.
>
> Yet, in that letter to Kehler, he remarks the retroduction is, yet,
> "simply a conjecture which arises in the mind" and that he did "not, at
> present, feel quite convinced that any logical form can be assigned that
> will cover all 'Retroductions'. For what I mean by a Retroduction is
> simply a *conjecture* which arises in the mind."
> Finally, and as my parting shot in making the distinction I've arrived at,
> in a non-dated passage Peirce comments on why he moved from calling an
> explanatory hypothesis in science an 'abduction' and instead settling on
> his alternative term, 'retroduction':
>
> CSP: I have hitherto called this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Ben Udell

To top it off, my grandfather Richard Hartshorne learned (decades ago) 
of the family connection to Nixon by reading an article on the six 
degrees of separation in a national news magazine (Time or Newsweek or 
maybe some other) that used the Nixon family tree as an example. - Best, Ben


On 9/8/2021 8:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

There's a book by Duncan Watts 'Six Degrees of Separation' - which
outlines how networks set up connections such that only six degrees
or nodal points separate people/events/ things.  So- you know someone
who knows someone who...

Outlines epidemics, economics etc

Lot of research in networks and connections.

Edwina
  On Wed 08/09/21 12:28 AM , "sowa @bestweb.net" s...@bestweb.net
sent:
  Ben,   It's a small world.   You're a cousin of Nixon's, and I'm a
friend of a friend (FOAF) of Albert Upton.   My wife Cora's uncle
Charlie (Charles Cooper) was hired as a professor of English by the
chairman, Albert Upton.  Cora said that Charlie would sometimes
mention "dinner with the Uptons."   Since I had met her uncle Charlie
many times, I am a friend of a friend of Albert Upton.  Many years
ago, Charlie was visiting Washington DC, and dropped by to visit his
former student, Senator Nixon.  So I could also be considered a FOAT
for Nixon's.   John.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment