thing about a religious [or other?] group is that it is made
> up of flawed people? I would say that is one of the best things, for 'being
> flawed' means that we are aware of our existentiality as 'merely a version
> of a Type'...and can enjoy our differences.
>
>
27;t think that self-generated means 'inexplicable'. It means what
>> it says: self-generated. The 'utter vagueness' suddenly 'compressed' in
>> spontaneity into a 'particle'..as outlined in 1.412.
>>
>> i certainly don't accept 'oth
27;other-generated' for then, we have to go to
> 'what generated this other power'?
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35
things, for 'being flawed'
means that we are aware of our existentiality as 'merely a version of a
Type'...and can enjoy our differences.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:04
ge -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: Pure undifferentiated energy so to speak.
That sounds like something, rather t
Helmut, List:
HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well,
something, and something is not nothing.
This led me to think of the following quote from Peirce.
CSP: We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing
of negation. For *not *means *other tha
ergence of the universe is that the three
> categories are *post hoc* fundamental elements. And what was 'there'
> before was obviously 'not there' [there was no time or
> space]...just...vagueness. The universe then self-generated and
> self-organized using the basic fu
tlined by Peirce in the earlier sections... 1.412.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: And that ca
ts. And what was 'there' before was obviously
'not there' [there was no time or space]...just...vagueness. The universe then
self-generated and self-organized using the basic fundamental three categories.
That's as far as i can go!
Edwina
- Original Message -
From:
pts an a priori agency - but, where the latter [might] include
> not an a priori agency but instead, argues for self-organization.
>
> So- I argue that indeed, everything could come from nothing, via the
> actions of self-organization, as outlined by Peirce in the earlier
> sections..
self-organization, as outlined by Peirce in the earlier sections... 1.412.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
E
Edwina, List:
ET: And that can be acceptable even if one defines these atemporal
aspatial Platonic world[s] as nothing for in a very real sense, they WERE
'nothing' - being aspatial and atemporal.
Only if you *presuppose *that only that which is spatial and temporal can
be "something." Peirce
agreement among those of us who are theists vs non-theists!
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Jon, Edwina, List,
I think one way of looking at thi
Gary R., List:
GR: I think one way of looking at this Platonic vs Aristotelian question
is to, at least in a sense and for the purposes of this kind of
cosmological discussion, restrict Peirce's Platonism (which, imo, ought not
be conflated with other versions of Platonism) to his consideration o
discussions of Mind and Matter and his
>>> discussion of the three categories - we do not read [as far as i can
>>> recollect] any hint of their separation, any suggestion that Mind is
>>> 'disembodied' and 'full-of-its truths'. Indeed, Thirdness is,
Gary R., List:
This is a follow-up to quote and comment further on NEM 4.345.
CSP: The *zero *collection is bare, abstract, germinal possibility. The
continuum is concrete, developed possibility. The whole universe of true
and real possibilities forms a continuum, upon which this Universe of
A
a bit in our readings of Peirce.
Edwina
----- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: I consider the two arguments,
identiary' proof that such a being exists. I
>> consider that this analysis is insufficient as proof - and that the very
>> notion of a 'pure mind' contradicts the outline of a self-organized
>> mind-matter universe that Peirce provided in 'A guess at the ri
Gary R., List:
I was pressed for time when I wrote my initial, brief response to this, so
I am coming back to it to make a few additional comments.
GR: ... what Peirce calls the "pure zero" state (which, in my thinking, is
roughly equivalent to the later blackboard metaphor) ...
After reviewin
ss at the Riddle [and other outlines of agapasm and evolution]
rather than the agential power-of-god outline. But that doesn't mean anything
conclusive - other than an awareness of my own predeliction for the one outline
versus the other! But - I do think they are incompatible.
Edwina
being
> drawn to the 1.412 Guess at the Riddle [and other outlines of agapasm and
> evolution] rather than the agential power-of-god outline. But that doesn't
> mean anything conclusive - other than an awareness of my own predeliction
> for the one outline versus the other! But - I do
-- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: I think you will have to admit that neither you nor I know for sure
which of the t
, there is your own open declaration of theism - and my equally open
> declaration of atheism. These have to affect each of us.
>
> This leads me to conclude that - as I said, neither you nor I know which
> of the two arguments is 'really held' by Peirce. I think we'll have
y, October 15, 2016 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the
Universe.
Peirce wrote "A Guess at the Riddle" in 1887-1888 and "A Neglected Argument"
in 1908
Edwina, List:
ET: What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the
Universe.
Peirce wrote "A Guess at the Riddle" in 1887-1888 and "A Neglected
Argument" in 1908. The latter, including its various drafts, states
explicitly that in Peirce's belief, God is Really creator of all
s no such thing as a single relation i.e.,the
> Representamen-Object, existing on its own. The triad of all
> three relations _is irreducible_. O-R; R-R; R-I. None of these
> exist on their own but within the triad. A Qualisign is a
> quality, a feeling - and is not in the 'third Univer
be applied reflectively.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
To: John F Sowa
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
John Collier, list:
You said: I agree with Edwina that all
cognitive beings, to our human species. Here it is indeed a noble
endeavour - but we are unfortunately, by the addition of 'imagination',
capable of both truth and complete and total self-delusion. And we have
difficulty, often, of differentiating the two.
Edwina
- Original Message -
F
Jerry, Edwina, John C,
It might be helpful to all, and also for the purpose of archiving, if one
of you would move this discussion to a differently named thread in your
next post as it seems not closely connected to the subject--Peirce's
cosmology--of this thread.
As I noted several weeks ago, th
John Collier, list:
You said: I agree with Edwina that all three elements are involved in the
pragmatic maxim.
Do you mind stating where, in the pragmatic maxim, it says this?
I'm not questioning whether it is or not. I'm just not sure to what you
are referring.
Thank you,
Jerry R
On Sat, Oc
On 10/15/2016 9:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Since I am rejecting a metaphysical origin [God] as the origin
of the universe, I stick with the Big Bang for now.
I agree with Heraclitus and my namesake, John the Evangelist:
Heraclitus wrote about the logos — translated variously as word,
speech
ry meditation" 6.286.
Just so- the above triad is a semiosic action - and equally applicable to a
crystal, which also lacks the power of prepatory meditation but does have the
entire semiosic act/syllogism within it.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond
To:
, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 2:32 AM
To: Jon Alan Schmidt
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, list:
I apologize if I missed something but wha
but is an 'output' interpretation
linked by the Representamen to the stimuli of the Object.
And again - of the ten classes of SIGNS, four of them do NOT have
their Representamen operating in a mode of Thirdness. That includes
the genuine sign of a rhematic iconic qualisign; and the Dicent
r of your examples, 1 or 2, fit it...but - perhaps I'm
missing something.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Jon Alan Schmidt
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, lis
Edwina, list:
haha! It just hit me that
(*B*, that which goes from surprise to suspect is true)
can be re-written as:
(*B*, Hence, *there is* *reason* to suspect is true).
That is, B = reasons, accounts, justifications, support for interpretant
(what the commens says).
For example,
B = "Cons
Edwina, list:
I apologize if I missed something but what you just stated was basically
all only generals.
What I am asking for is to apply those generals to the question of the
pragmatic maxim and provide the argumentation, that is, the specific
premisses (e.g., what is the object or original
Gary R., List:
Thanks for the reminders about Sheriff's book; it was one of my first
introductions to Peirce's thought, and I even re-read it recently, but I
need to review the portions that you mentioned in light of the discussions
in this thread. Thanks also for the additional information on th
the major
premise; the Interpretant is the Conclusion.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien ; Mike Bergman
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Woah...so, obj
gn, which as a /quality/ (as well as an
> > icon and rheme) is entirely in the mode of Firstness, but as a
> > /sign/--at least, according to Peirce in CP 1.480--can only
> > belong to the third Universe."
> >
> > I completely disagree with you on the above. The
eloping more
> semiosic networked connections with other Objects.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jerry Rhee
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Helmut Raulien ; Mike Bergman
> ; Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2016 6:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re:
Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Helmut Raulien ; Mike Bergman ; Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina,
What part does the object play in that universe?
Thanks,
Jerry
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:28 PM,
evolving, adapting,
> interacting [agapasm]...within the ongoing process of semiosis.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Helmut Raulien
> *To:* m...@mkbergman.com
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2016 5:56 PM
> *Subject:* A
.com
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 5:56 PM
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Dear list members,
I am afraid this is not very Peirce-related, but I want to say something
about the creation concept, as I more and more am getting the opinion, th
mode.
Edwina.
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Jon, Edwina, Gary F, Soren, List,
John Sheriff, in Charles Peirce's Guess at the Riddle: Grounds for Human
f the triad. There is no such thing as a
> 'quality' in itself.
> The definition of a sign is its triadic set of Relations: That
> between the Representamen and the Object; that of the
> Representamen in itself; that between the Representamen and the
> Interpretant. The Re
e of Thirdness. That
includes the genuine sign of a rhematic iconic qualisign; and
the Dicent Indexical Sinsign...
And yet - these are legitimate SIGNS. They have no Thirdness in
them at all.
See 2.227 and on.
Again, the triad is basic to semiosis; it
R; R-R; R-I.
>>> None of these exist on their own but within the triad. A Qualisign is a
>>> quality, a feeling - and is not in the 'third Universe'.
>>>
>>> A quality IS a qualisign! There is no such thing as something operating
>>> outside o
HIRDNESS.
>>>
>>> So, i don't equate the three universes to match the three categories.
>>> The quotation you provide "I said that a thoroughly genuine triad in a
>>> mode of Firstness (i.e., a qualisign) belongs to the third Universe of
>>&g
Dear John, Jerry R.,
Thank you very much, John for your brilliant summary on the relation
between nominalism and pragmaticism & Einstein and his theorizing.
And Jerry, I would recommend a very detailed study of the two
formulations by CSP, given in his first Harward Lecture (EP vol. 2)
befor
ealms as I do - and I'm sure you know that Peirce included
those realms as well.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina,
S, four of them do NOT have their
>> Representamen operating in a mode of Thirdness. That includes the genuine
>> sign of a rhematic iconic qualisign; and the Dicent Indexical Sinsign...
>> And yet - these are legitimate SIGNS. They have no Thirdness in them at
>> all.
>
irdness in them at
> all.
> See 2.227 and on.
>
> Again, the triad is basic to semiosis; it does not necessarily require
> Thirdness in its component [again, see the ten classes 2.227..] and ..there
> is no such thing as a 'quality' or indeed anything, functioning outside
Gary F., List:
Thank you for those references. I was thinking about conducting a search
myself, and you have saved me the trouble, although I may still do some
digging through CP. I will take a look as soon as I can, although I am
traveling tonight and tomorrow and do not have my hard copy of EP
Dear John, list:
Thank you for your statement but I'm not sure to what you are objecting.
Is it that the pragmatic maxim does not achieve the stated goal: "Each
abstraction is either pronounced to be gibberish or is provided with a
plain, practical definition."
...or that *this* pragmatic maxim
On 10/13/2016 5:24 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
[Peirce's pragmatic axiom] once accepted, – intelligently accepted,
in the light of the evidence of its truth, – speedily sweeps all
metaphysical rubbish out of one’s house. Each abstraction is either
pronounced to be gibberish or is provided with a plain,
ily require
Thirdness in its component [again, see the ten classes 2.227..] and ..there is
no such thing as a 'quality' or indeed anything, functioning outside of the
semiosic triad.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-
omments on that until I catch up with the thread.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 11-Oct-16 15:08
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Gary F., List:
GF: I think it would be less of a
connections', to mediate,
> to connect. That is the nature of Firstness - its isolate vividness.
> So- we disagree in our readings.
>
> As for your interpretation of God and Peirce - I maintain that it remains
> your interpretation and that Peirce's view of Mind and creat
; to connect. That is the nature of Firstness - its isolate vividness.
> So- we disagree in our readings.
>
> As for your interpretation of God and Peirce - I maintain that it remains
> your interpretation and that Peirce's view of Mind and creation - is quite
> different from yo
maintain that it remains your
interpretation and that Peirce's view of Mind and creation - is quite
different from yours.
Edwina
----- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:13 PM
Subject: R
sees 'Mind' as the agential force - an ongoing,
> evolving, open force - and a part of matter - i.e., not separate from
> matter- and therefore not prior to time or matter. [see his discussion in
> the Reality of God - 6.489
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message
rce - an ongoing, evolving, open force - and a part of
matter - i.e., not separate from matter- and therefore not prior to time or
matter. [see his discussion in the Reality of God - 6.489
Edwina
- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc:
Edwina, List:
ET: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations between
the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the mode
of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.
I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I relations
specifically, but r
ffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Hello Jon S, Gary R., List,
What more might we say about Peirce's account of what "would-be"--where the
focus is on the conceptions of o
Jeff, List:
Thanks for your comments; Gary R. and I are both big fans of "The Logic of
Mathematics, an attempt to develop my categories from within." Although it
is usually dated to c.1896, what you quoted--which, by the way, is CP
1.480, not CP 1.515--already hints at the concept of three worlds
sophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:01 PM
To: Gary Richmond
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Gary R., List:
Zalamea's book has already started paying off.
Gary R., List:
Zalamea's book has already started paying off. In a footnote on page 7, he
references a 1989 *Transactions* article by Brian Noble, "Peirce's
Definitions of Continuity and the Concept of Possibility." The title
seemed promising for insight into the relation between
possibility/Fir
Gary R., List:
GR: This question of whether to consider "a continuum of possibilities" as
expressing 3ns or 1ns is a thorny one which is still being considered, for
example, by Fernando Zalamea and others.
Coincidentally, I just found out that Zalamea's book, *Peirce's Logic of
Continuity*, is
Jon, list:
That was your best post ever!
You said explicitly this time:
“Instead, as I hinted in my original post, *someone has to draw them*”
___
*Athenian Stranger*. Tell me, Strangers, is a God or some man supposed to
be the author of your laws?
*Cleinias.* A God, Stranger; in ve
Gary R., List:
I am rapidly becoming quite enamored with Peirce's blackboard discussion,
as I think that it sheds considerable light on his cosmological
speculations. No doubt the fact that he called it "a sort of diagram" is a
big part of its appeal to me, given my research into diagrammatic rea
Jon, List,
Catching up with list posts returning from my trip South I apparently
missed at least your post in response to Gary F.
In my message yesterday I hope I made it clear that I associate
*ur-continuity* (the blackboard metaphor) with 3ns not 1ns. Peirce is quite
explicit about this as I ho
-- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> As a matter of fact, I have read that
omponents.
So- our readings of Peirce differ quite a bit.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
Secondness.
Best
Søren
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12. oktober 2016 04:28
To: Søren Brier
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Søren, List:
It is interesting that you ment
.com]
Sent: 12. oktober 2016 04:09
To: Søren Brier
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Søren, List:
SB: I think your problem is solved by Panentheism, which accept the divine to
be both transcendent and immanent.
Again, I am now leaning against tryi
onsider the three universes as equivalent to the three
>> categories. I don't see how one can analyze the ten classes of signs
>> without the use of the three categories - and the three universes would be
>> irrelevant in that analysis of the semiosic process.
>>
>>
ysis of the semiosic process.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Helmut Raulien ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmolog
ithout the use of the
three categories - and the three universes would be irrelevant in that analysis
of the semiosic process.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Helmut Raulien ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9
Søren, List:
It is interesting that you mentioned Edwina and quoted CP 6.24-25 at
length. As you may recall, she and I discussed that same passage
extensively a couple of months ago, in the thread on "Peirce's Objective
Idealism." Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement on whether he
re
Søren, List:
SB: I think your problem is solved by Panentheism, which accept the divine
to be both transcendent and immanent.
Again, I am now leaning against trying to apply any such label to Peirce.
Granted, one of the three drafts that I quoted from R 843 indicates that
God is not *merely *im
ategorize experience. I read
> them as integral to reality and existence.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Helmut Raulien
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEI
lmut Raulien
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Helmut, List:
My understanding of "pantheism" is that it entails that God is "immanent in
nature," so Peirce's explicit denial of this in three different drafts of "A
Negle
...@gnusystems.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
List,
Regarding the question, whether Peirce was a pantheist or not, I was thinking
about the meaning of "immanent". If it means that something is contained
(nonlocally in this ca
Dear list:
Lest we not ignore all who investigate, Alasdair McIntyre situates the
neglected argument and makes some amusing philosophical moves in his
lecture, “On Being a Theistic Philosopher in a Secularized Culture”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tm-5JXRXkM
First, he recognizes Peirce a
Jon, Gary F, List,
Gary F wrote:
*[GF: ] *But I think you will agree that *possibility* is the logical
equivalent of Firstness, not Thirdness. Peirce at this stage in his
thinking often identified continuity with generality, and he wrote c.1905
that “The generality of the possible” is “the only t
nal
labels which we use to categorize experience. I read them as integral to
reality and existence.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pei
Helmut, List:
My understanding of "pantheism" is that it entails that God is "immanent in
nature," so Peirce's explicit denial of this in three different drafts of
"A Neglected Argument" is pretty decisive evidence against deeming him a
pantheist. It seems to me that Edwina's adjustment--stating
Gary F., List:
GF: I think it would be less of a stretch to identify the *contents* of
those Universes as Firsts, Seconds and Thirds, i.e. as subjects or objects
in which Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness (respectively) inhere.
I have generally been reluctant to talk about Firsts/Seconds/Th
List,
Regarding the question, whether Peirce was a pantheist or not, I was thinking about the meaning of "immanent". If it means that something is contained (nonlocally in this case), like as an epiphenomenon or a trait of something, then something "immanent" implies not being the creator of this
Jon, list,
On the question of which of the three Universes may not “have a Creator
independent of it,” I’d like to offer an argument that it could be the Universe
of Firstness rather than Thirdness. However I won’t have time this week to
construct an argumentation as thoroughgoing as your ar
ur view that my interpretations are discrepancies
with Peirce's writings. I maintain that you and I interpret Peirce's writings
very differently.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, Octo
Edwina, List:
ET: I reject also your linear outline of Peirce, where you reject an
earlier description as inaccurate and rely instead, only on the later
description.
Perhaps I gave you the wrong impression. I do not *reject *Peirce's
earlier writings, I just tend to *give more weight* to his l
ument for the three modes
of argumentation of Abduction, Induction, Deduction.
What was before our universe: As Peirce wrote - nothing. [1.274
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, October 10, 201
Edwina, List:
I know that we read Peirce differently, and again I leave it to our fellow
List participants to judge for themselves which of our readings is more
plausible. I will just make a few quick comments in response, and pose a
few sincere questions.
ET: I continue to consider Peirce a pa
rgument about abduction.
That is - the three universes in order would be Abduction, Induction,
Deduction.
So- we each read Peirce in a different way.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 10:45 PM
List:
As I mentioned a few weeks ago when I started the thread on "Peirce's
Theory of Thinking," there is an intriguing paragraph about cosmology in
the first additament to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." It
did not actually accompany the article originally, but nevertheless is in
98 matches
Mail list logo
