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

Jon, Edwina, Clark, List, Perhaps this back and forth--especially the tone and tendency towards repetition--has gotten "tiresome" for some readers as well as the most active participants. I had hoped my suggestion a while back of a Platonic cosmos *pre*-the Big Bang (note: of course I completely

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

Edwina, List: Lest we get bogged down any further in yet another tiresome exegetical battle, I will simply say that I find almost nothing in your last post to be consistent with my understanding of Peirce's own thought. I once again leave it to the List community to decide which of us--if either

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

Jon - as Clark has been trying to point out, you and I are locked in terminological difficulties. Your insistence that YOUR use is identical with that of Peirce's use - is simply your own opinion. My reading of Peirce is that all three categorical modes only function within Relations.

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

Edwina, List: Once again, I find your use of terminology inconsistent with Peirce's. Firstness is real, but does not exist. It has no Relations, because any Relation requires Secondness. "Pure nothing" is the chaos of Firstness and Secondness in the absence of Thirdness. Accepting any matter

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > I agree that Pierce claims that to do science you must have faith in the > possibility of finding truth and that knowing is connected to thirdness. I > wonder if it has anything to do with agapism? I think in the places he

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Is it helpful at all to refer to "actualization," rather than "cause"? > Edwina's position, as I understand it, is that our existing universe is not > only self-organizing but also self-generating or

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

I think that 'actualization' and 'cause' are two entirely different actions. With regard to Firstness, I see it, as a spontaneous state of existence which might then act upon/be reacted to.., in the 'fullness of this state'. The point of all the categories is that they operate within

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Dear list: with apologies... I meant "from the start no better than a vegetable". Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > Jon, list: > > Thank you for that earnest answer. > Still, can there not be a strongest argument? > That is, an argument

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by the term > of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a matter of habit. > Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, list: Thank you for that earnest answer. Still, can there not be a strongest argument? That is, an argument that is the best given the number of existing possibilities that are presented explicitly; a choice among them that is based on our valuation for likeness between terms? And if we

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jerry, List, I tend to think more in relative terms than absolute terms, so I would not expect to find an absolute best formulation of any core principle in philosophy, science, or even math. But taken relative to specific interpreters and objectives we frequently find that symbolic expressions

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

Dear list: What gets lost in all this is the ultimate aim of this conversation for all who investigate. So, what is it? I don't suspect that it is to bring us to *gether*. It is not to promote growth of concrete reasonableness, for how can you love what you cannot trust? Best, Jerry R On Thu,

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

Edwina, Clark, List: ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by the term of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a matter of habit. Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal manner leads him to such conclusions. I meant 'chance or Firstness or

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

1) Clark - yes, thank you for your comment on my comment: ET: The vital importance of chance as an agential force in the emergence and evolution of matter/mind ... Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by the term of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as

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

Edwina, List: 1) This is getting ridiculous. I never said or implied that the only alternative to Peirce writing what he meant and meaning what he wrote is that he was *lying*. My point pertains to us as readers, rather than him as a writer--quite simply, in the absence of good reasons to do

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

Dear list: The pragmatic maxim: If good because useful, then not useful because we do not even look to it. Therefore, not useful. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > >

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational > ur-continuity. I’m not sure that’s right. There’s certainly a type of continuity in quantum field theory but it’s unlike Peirce’s ur-continutiy because

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

Jon, List 1) An IF-THEN argument, as you have set it up, removes the conditional and interpretive factor inherent in an IF-THEN argument. That's because you have inserted a moral condition, that suggests that IF one doesn't accept the THEN assertions in the list you provided, THEN, it

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree > with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process > theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected

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

Gary, list Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational ur-continuity. What fascinates me with this interpretation is that it changes the conception of God from the person creator we are used in standard Christianity and many other religions to a general process ontology

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

Clark, List: All good points, thanks. Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what

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

Edwina, List: ET: I would expect Jon S to disagree. While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected determinism--or necessitarianism, as he

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical > ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or

[PEIRCE-L] Tartu Summer School of Semiotic 2017: Generalising Gently - CFP

List, Some here might be interested in this CALL FOR PAPERS Best, Gary R We are happy to announce the call for papers for the next Tartu Summer School of Semiotics taking place *August 15-18 2017* in Tartu. The topic of TSSS 2017 is “*Generalising Gently*”, which addresses the central and

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

Jon, Edwina, list: I would like to recommend a method to help you clarify your meaning. To ascertain the meaning of your current intellectual conception, one should consider what practical consequences might result from the truth of that conception—and the sum of these consequences constitute

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

Clark, list: Agreed, that the term of 'god' in Peirce, at least in my interpretation, is more akin to the god-in-process 'theology' [or I prefer Nature-in-process'] rather than a priori determinism or First Cause. I would expect Jon S to disagree. The vital importance of chance as an agential

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

Clark, List: I think that your comments here hit the nail on the head. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > The first paragraph tells us that Peirce's approach to Scripture was that > of "modern Biblical criticism," and he expected "the liberal

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

Clark, List: CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or extending arguments beyond where Peirce took them). I agree, and I have tried to

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

Edwina, List: 1) What? I never said anything about "what [I interpret as his meaning]"; those are *your *words, which you inserted into my *conditional *comment--IF Peirce wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote, THEN it is incontrovertible that in 1908 he believed that God as *Ens

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

> The first paragraph tells us that Peirce's approach to Scripture was that of > "modern Biblical criticism," and he expected "the liberal parties" to triumph > accordingly. This is not surprising; I also discovered that he wrote in R > 851 (1911) that "the reader will find me a scientific man

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

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of > 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this > 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang >

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

Clark, List yes, I'd agree; even now we can't be sure that 'the Big Bang' is an 'absolute beginning' and as you note - we still haven't figured out the notion of time. I'd also agree with your "the universe in its role as a sign is developing simultaneously historically and logically.". And a

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

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" following the > creation of this Universe (that is, after the Big Bang, so to loosely speak) > is *not* the same as the 3ns which is the

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

Jon - again, you are lifting words/phrases and inserting your own meanings. 1) To now claim that your statement that either a writer 'means what he says or doesn't' is a 'common-sense assumption is not the same as 'either he meant what [I interpret as his meaning] or he did not' - is not

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

Edwina, List: If Peirce wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote, then it is incontrovertible that in 1908 he believed that God as *Ens necessarium *was the Creator of all three Universes of Experience and all of their contents, without exception. By what valid method of interpretation can

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

Edwina, List: 1) How does expressing a common-sense assumption about any author's writings constitute "almost a threat"? 2) How do you "metaphorically" interpret these rather straightforward statements by Peirce, all written in 1908 (emphases in original)? 1. The word 'God,' so 'capitalized'

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

Jon, list - and that's my point. You insist that 'there is really no debating whether he (at least eventually) believed that there is a non-immanent Creator involved; he said so explicitly, in "A Neglected Argument" and its manuscript drafts. " But there IS a debate. You choose to ignore his

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

Edwina, List: ET: I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang Thirdness. Gary R. and I have laid out our reasons for seeing all of

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

I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang Thirdness. But I am concerned about the focus of this thread. It seems to me that we are