hmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
>
> Helmut, List:
>
> HR: Nothing cannot exis
Edwina
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Gary Richmond
>> <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
>> *S
ssage -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Gary Richmond
> <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re
'
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 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's
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 than nothing.
ET: Peirce assumes all three categories as 'fundamental elements' - acting
upon each other from
ime 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:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
&
elf-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
Edwina, List:
tal three categories.
That's as far as i can go!
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
ET: So- I argue tha
tions... 1.412.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L
> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>
of
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
Edwina
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
-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 this Platonic vs Aristotelian question is to,
at least
paration, any suggestion that Mind is
>>> 'disembodied' and 'full-of-its truths'. Indeed, Thirdness is, as embedded
>>> within Secondness/Firstness - always able to change and evolve its habits,
>>> something a pure Mind would not do.
>>>
>>> So- my r
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
re mind' contradicts the outline of a self-organized
>> mind-matter universe that Peirce provided in 'A guess at the riddle'.
>>
>> I cannot explain these two, to my reading, very different descriptions of
>> the emergence and evolution of the universe of mind and
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
other than an awareness of my own predeliction for the one outline
versus the other! But - I do think they are incompatible.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:05 PM
Subj
gential 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
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
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 two arguments for the emergence of the universe are 'really held'
by Peirce.
On the contrary--I think that
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 to
> leave it at
e: 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. The latter, including its various
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
n) belongs to the third Universe of
> Experience, as something "/whose being consists in
> active power to establish connections between different
> objects"/ (CP 6.455). .I consider that this /quote
> /_refers to Thirdness_. And therefore - I don't see that
> a qualisign - one ent
aturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
> *To:* John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
>
>
>
> John Collier, list:
>
>
>
> You said: I agree with Edwina that all three eleme
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 <s...@bestweb.net>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
John Collier, lis
: Saturday, October 15, 2016 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
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 Evangel
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,
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,
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,
d 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: Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L
, 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 <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subj
ich involves generality or Thirdness.
So, again, a triad in a mode of Firstness does not, in my readings
of Peirce, belong in 'the Third universe'; there is no generality.
Firstness has no capacity to 'make connections', to mediate, to
connect. That is the nature of Firstness - its isolate vividn
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 =
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
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
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, objects are pretty
third Universe."
> >
> > I completely disagree with you on the above. The whole triad - a
> > rhematic iconic qualisign - is entirely in the mode of Firstness
> > and _is a sign_. And does NOT belong to the third Universe.
> > There is no such thing as a single relation i
an
> <m...@mkbergman.com> ; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *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,
>
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, Edwina Taborsky
lways evolving, adapting,
> interacting [agapasm]...within the ongoing process of semiosis.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
> *To:* m...@mkbergman.com
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, Oct
@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, that it
is anthropocentric
: 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
Significance, in commenting on what Peirce calls the "pure
t; between the Representamen and the Object; that of the
> Representamen in itself; that between the Representamen and the
> Interpretant. The Representamen acts as mediation - and _can be
> in a mode of Firstness. _An Interpretant is not an Object but
> is an 'output' interpretation linke
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 yours.
Edwina
- Original Message -
S a qualisign! There is no such thing as something operating
>>> outside of 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
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.
>> See 2.227 and on.
>>
>> Again, the triad is basic to
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)
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, List:
ET: When you say that some of Peirce's positions are perfectly
ode 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 does
thoroughly genuine triad* which involves
>> generality or Thirdness. So, again, a triad in a mode of Firstness does
>> not, in my readings of Peirce, belong in 'the Third universe'; there is *no
>> generality*. Firstness has no capacity to 'make connections', to
>> mediate, to
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
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
sses 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-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's
of God and Peirce - I 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 <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <
t;>
>> Now - this self-organized complexity didn't need a prior 'ens
>> necessarium'. I am aware, Jon, of your view of genesis and god, since you
>> have provided your supportive quotations from the Bible - which sees god as
>> an agential creator - but - I don't see tha
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
I try to be careful about only attributing to Peirce, rather than myself,
those things
efore 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: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pe
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
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 of generality, potentiality and
possibility--when we consider Peirce's suggestion that
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
na University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
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 payi
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
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
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
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
ssage -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *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
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:
As a matter of fact, I have read that particular
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 mentioned
.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 trying to
hree 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.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
&g
- Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [
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 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
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
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
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
> *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
>
> Helmut, List:
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
Neglected Argument&q
...@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 c
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
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
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] Peirce's Cosmology
Helmut, List:
My understanding of "pantheism" is that
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
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
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
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, October 10, 2016 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
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
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
Edwina, List:
I know that we read Peirce differently, and again I leave it to our
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
Jon, List:
1) You have outlined your views on these issues quite often - and I disagree. I
think that your view on Peirce's view of 'God' is dependent on your own theism
- and I continue to consider Peirce a pantheist.
2) First - with regard to the categories, I reject your view that
91 matches
Mail list logo
