Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Soren, Jon, List. Soren wrote: ​ But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt argues so Well in *Natural propositions* and feeling is present in all matter (Hylozoism) and all three categories arise

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Søren, List: SB: But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness ... ... then the first chapter of John's Gospel is not talking about the same Logos, since it says that it "became flesh and dwelt among us" in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark: To clarify, I did not mean to imply that I was stating *Peirce's* analysis of John 1:1; again, as far as I know, he never quoted or directly commented on it. That was just my own first pass at parsing it in terms of the three Categories. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, list: If you require aid in interpreting John 1:1, I would contrast a lecture by Benedict XVI with Peirce’s “What is Christian Faith?”. “At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, List But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt argues so Well in Natural propositions and feeling is present in all matter (Hylozoism) and all three categories arise as universes from pure

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinctive Reason and Metaphysics

Jon, list: You said: My impression from both passages is that he did not believe that he had adequately spelled out his complete "theory of thinking" in anything that he had written previously. But that is not what Peirce said. Because he said: “The development of my ideas has been the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > At first glance, it seems to me that mapping John 1:1 to Peirce's Categories > gives us something like, "In the beginning was the Word [Thirdness], and the > Word was with God [Secondness], and the Word was

[PEIRCE-L] Quantum semiotics - the evidence mounts

List, While we have a thread running on Peirce's cosmology, metaphysics and nothing, the following kind of relates, I guess :) In the course of busying myself with my projects connecting quantum physics with semiotics, I've unearthed further leads that might interest some of us here. My thesis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: At first glance, it seems to me that mapping John 1:1 to Peirce's Categories gives us something like, "In the beginning was the Word [Thirdness], and the Word was with God [Secondness], and the Word was God [Firstness]." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, List: The question still arises of what to make of the statement in John's Gospel that "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." Neither nature nor its laws can be substituted for Logos in this case. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Potter writes: > > I would like to add here on my account that when it coms to understanding the > conditions of possibility of special disclosure or revelation in holy persons > or historical events, disclosure

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinctive Reason and Metaphysics

Jeff, List: That is helpful, thank you. I will try to take a closer look at CP 2.79-118 and see if it prompts any further thoughts to discuss. Peirce wrote something similar to what you cited from "A Neglected Argument" in R 842; I quoted and commented on it in the thread on "Peirce's Theory of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 11/2/2016 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: His favorite Gospel was that of John, but did he ever quote its first chapter? "In the beginning was the Word [logos] ... Since his father taught him Greek at a very early age, I'm sure that New Testament Greek was one of the first texts he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon S, List, Jon quoted me and remarked: *Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen as both the very incarnation of God and truly man) is one I'm wholly unprepared to consider at this time.* *I would love to consider this question, but I have no idea whether or where

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinctive Reason and Metaphysics

Hello Jon S, List, You have found some of what I've said to be inscrutable. Let me try to be clearer about what I was trying to say in the last message: 1. In my own work, I am finding that a closer reading of the first chapter of the Minute Logic is quite helpful in my ongoing efforts to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, list: Here it is: “Keep your one purpose steadily and alone in view, and you may promise yourself the attainment of your sole desire, which is to hasten the chariot wheels of redeeming love!” ~Peirce Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Gary R., List: GR: We've discussed in at least one of the cosmological threads of late the way in which Peirce does ascribe one sort of being to God, namely, Reality. On the other hand, Peirce held that to refer to God as Existing was clearly wrong, perhaps fetishistic, since existence concerns