Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, JAS, list I have two points about the comment by JAS, But I've outlined them before and merely restate my view of the Peircean outline. 1] JAS: Why not simply admit disagreement with Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Edwina, Jon AS, List, I don't remember all the details of Peirce's many references to God or religion, but I do remember that he said that his views were "unconventional", even though he did take communion at an Episcopal church and he did have a strong spiritual experience at St. Thomas

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Jon AS, Edwina, List, As Edwina correctly states, Peirce's hypothesis is a religious opinion. The only debatable point is whether there is any scientific methodology that could prove or disprove that hypothesis. Since Peirce did not propose any methodology for resolving that debate, and

Re: [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.

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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,

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

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" (

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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,

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

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

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

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

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

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

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

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'

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,

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

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";

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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!!

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

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

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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'

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

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Peircers, I found the first edition of the book online. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035723629=1up=65 Mary Libertin > On Sep 7, 2021, at 5:32 PM, sowa @bestweb.net wrote: > > Following are two reviews

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

I found the book Creative Analysis by Albert Upton online at the following address: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035723629=1up=65 Enjoy! Mary Libertin > On Sep 7, 2021, at 5:32 PM, sowa @bestweb.net

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Yeah, I got the Whittier collocation with Nixon, didn't know that Upton actually taught Nixon. Best, Ben, 3rd cousin twice removed of Richard Nixon.  (Two Milhouse sisters, one married a Nixon, one married a Hartshorne, giving rise to many including Charles & Richard Hartshorne (the latter of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Following are two reviews from the Amazon.com web page for the book by Albert Upton: As review #1 says. DO NOT buy the 1978 version. I ordered the 1963 version from Ebay for $19.95. I believe that #2 is mistaken about the college. Albert Upton was the chairman of the English

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

Phyllis, List, PC: The artist and the muser don't necessarily have a goal to guide their explorations I agree. Peirce makes the point at several places in the N.A. Here are a couple of examples:

[PEIRCE-L] A comment

Gary wrote: An excerpt from "The Basis of pragmatism" makes clear that the phaneroscopist needs a "definitie field to explore." Phyllis' comment: The artist and the muser don't necessarily have a goal to guide their explorations, as for example, in pure play. The creations/discoveries begin in