date:20210908

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
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:27 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> 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 to 'be right' and thus,
> fit in with your definition of 'debate].
>
> And frankly - if we are 'discussing' an issue - then, what is the point if
> all it means is that you lay out your points of view, and I lay out my
> points of view -- just present them...and walk off into the night. I think
> that debate/discussion go together. You are certainly trying to convince me
> of the validity of your opinions - and vice versa. We both know that we
> won't achieve this - but this doesn't prevent us from trying!
>
> As for 'input/output' - that's hardly unique to me but is used by other
> Peircean semioticians - as I've pointed out before. Plus - I think it's
> vital to expand the use of the Peircean framework into other fields - and
> into the modern world - and the use of such terms is a key to this agenda
> because it uses the terms of these other disciplines - to show how these
> disciplines are actually using a Peircean framework - and can expand this
> framework for further research in those disciplines.
>
>  This doesn't mean that Peirce is 'behind the times'; it means that his
> analytic framework fits in perfectly with modern research in biology,
> physics, chemistry, AI, information theory, economics - and indeed, if used
> [using the terms understood by these disciplines] can expand the
> understandings of our world - within these other disciplines.
>
> 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.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 10:04 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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 example, for reasonable
> terminology in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing
> between 'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But the
> problem, it turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that case, that I'm
> the problem: I'm too concerned about,  terminology, and get "hung up" on
> it as the English expression goes. It seems like a kind of 'fault' on my
> part and she apparently sees no responsibility in such matters, so I should
> already know what she meant to say; or I've got to figure out what she
> means.
>
> And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the topics
> which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's, not that I
> haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I find her
> input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's semeiotic views
> more than reasonable and worthy of further development, well from her
> perspective, that's my problem. He and I are apparently "behind the times."
>
> I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
> producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in and
> says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the highway," well
> what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has been one of my major
> challenges as List moderator.
>
> On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence and
> her considerable professional accomplishments.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator)
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>>> point of the argument.

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 to
'be right' and thus, fit in with your definition of 'debate]. 

And frankly - if we are 'discussing' an issue - then, what is the
point if all it means is that you lay out your points of view, and I
lay out my points of view -- just present them...and walk off into
the night. I think that debate/discussion go together. You are
certainly trying to convince me of the validity of your opinions -
and vice versa. We both know that we won't achieve this - but this
doesn't prevent us from trying!

As for 'input/output' - that's hardly unique to me but is used by
other Peircean semioticians - as I've pointed out before. Plus - I
think it's vital to expand the use of the Peircean framework into
other fields - and into the modern world - and the use of such terms
is a key to this agenda because it uses the terms of these other
disciplines - to show how these disciplines are actually using a
Peircean framework - and can expand this framework for further
research in those disciplines.

 This doesn't mean that Peirce is 'behind the times'; it means that
his analytic framework fits in perfectly with modern research in
biology, physics, chemistry, AI, information theory, economics - and
indeed, if used [using the terms understood by these disciplines] can
expand the understandings of our world - within these other
disciplines. 

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.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21 10:04 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 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 example, for reasonable
terminology in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing
between 'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But
the problem, it turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that
case, that I'm the problem: I'm too concerned about,  terminology,
and get "hung up" on it as the English expression goes. It seems like
a kind of 'fault' on my part and she apparently sees no responsibility
in such matters, so I should already know what she  meant to say; or
I've got to figure out what she means.
 And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the
topics which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's,
not that I haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I
find her input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's
semeiotic views more than reasonable and worthy of further
development, well from her perspective, that's my problem. He and I
are apparently "behind the times." 
 I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in
and says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the
highway," well what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has
been one of my major challenges as List moderator.
  On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence
and her considerable professional accomplishments. 
 Best,
 Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator) 
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson  wrote:
 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
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage.  

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even

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 - with which I disagree. That's a huge difference.
>
> Surely we, on this list, can debate an issue without also bringing in our
> own 'persons' into the argument.
>
> But I see no reason why debate about issues can't include disagreement
> with the other person's point of view and analysis!
>
> If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we 'like' the
> person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds like politics to me!
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 9:42 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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
>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
>> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
>> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
>> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
>> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
>> linguistic usage.
>>
>> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to
>> say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not
>> an argument.
>>
>> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
>> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
>> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
>> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
>> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>>
>> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
>> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
>> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
>> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>>
>> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
>> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
>> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
>> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
>> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
>> develop commonalities [synechism].
>>
>> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
>> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
>> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
>> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
>> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
>> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
>> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
>> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
>> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> 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 you would be more careful with
>> your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
>> which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.
>>
>> ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.
>>
>> GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
>> refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the term
>> 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even Peirce's
>> suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
>>
>> I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react
>> with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
>> would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)
>>
>> And that is all.
>>
>> ET: 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

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 bringing
in our own 'persons' into the argument.

But I see no reason why debate about issues can't include
disagreement with the other person's point of view and analysis!

If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we
'like' the person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds
like politics to me!

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  9:42 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 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
sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses
the point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage.  

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of
'god' is higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or
whatever! They all refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many
times before - to Peirce, 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human
species.  

I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' -
since the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism -
none of which have anything to do with what I see as the
'force'/functionality of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.

I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to
tell me that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a
confusing term, since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically
loaded with meanings that have absolutely no relevance to what I
understand as agapism - which is the 'tendency of organisms of
mind/matter to connect, network, interact, develop commonalities
[synechism]. 

As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree -
I brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose'
and 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what
YOU mean by 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the
only purpose of matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of
energy, which is accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity
of matter/mind - and I don't attribute any morality to this. Morality
is important in our human societies - since we lack innate knowledge -
but- it is an issue for sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and
religious systems. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [2]
sent:
 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 you would be
more careful with your choice of words. In short, the burden is on
you to choose terminology which best expresses your thinking in the
matter, not on me to guess it. 
ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is
not relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does,
that to refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the
term 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even
Peirce's suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of
"react with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in
that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

 And that is all.

ET: 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 emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

 GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the
singular reality which is

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 example, for reasonable terminology
in consideration of Peircean issues (like distinguishing between
'existence' and 'reality' when talking about the N.A.) But the problem, it
turns out (from her perspective) is that, in that case, that *I'm the
problem*: I'm too concerned about,  terminology, and get "hung up" on it as
the English expression goes. It seems like a kind of 'fault' on my part and
she apparently sees no responsibility in such matters, so I should already
know what she *meant* to say; or I've got to figure out what *she* means.

And, in truth, I'm much more convinced by Peirce's views on the topics
which brought this very e-forum into existence than Edwina's, not that I
haven't tried to be open to them. But if, for example, I find her
input-output model of semeiotics problematic and Peirce's semeiotic views
more than reasonable and worthy of further development, well from her
perspective, that's my problem. He and I are apparently "behind the times."

I've always preferred discussion to debate because it is capable of
producing new, fresh understandings. But if one digs one's heels in and
says something to the intellectual effect of "my way or the highway," well
what is one to do? Reacting to this kind of thing has been one of my major
challenges as List moderator.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge both Edwina's keen intelligence and her
considerable professional accomplishments.

Best,

Gary R (I suppose, writing as List moderator)

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
>> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
>> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
>> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
>> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
>> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
>> linguistic usage.
>>
>> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to
>> say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not
>> an argument.
>>
>> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
>> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
>> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
>> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
>> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>>
>> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
>> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
>> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
>> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>>
>> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
>> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
>> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
>> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
>> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
>> develop commonalities [synechism].
>>
>> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
>> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
>> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
>> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
>> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
>> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
>> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
>> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
>> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> Edwina, List,
>>
>> ET: I am sure you understand that the term of 'existence' in my comment
>> refers

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
> sidetracked into 'that's not the correct term!!!' - that one misses the
> point of the argument. Therefore - it is a 'fetish' to sidetrack into
> 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your other sidetrack
> comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets 'hung up' on terms, the
> whole issue is abandoned. We don't always discuss issues using strictly and
> only Peircean terminology; we sometimes, sadly,  stray into common
> linguistic usage.
>
> So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And to say
> that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is, frankly, not an
> argument.
>
> I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies for
> the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of 'god' is
> higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or whatever! They all
> refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many times before - to Peirce,
> 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human species.
>
> I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' - since
> the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism - none of
> which have anything to do with what I see as the 'force'/functionality of
> 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.
>
> I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to tell me
> that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a confusing term,
> since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically loaded with meanings
> that have absolutely no relevance to what I understand as agapism - which
> is the 'tendency of organisms of mind/matter to connect, network, interact,
> develop commonalities [synechism].
>
> As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree - I
> brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose' and
> 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what YOU mean by
> 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the only purpose of
> matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of energy, which is
> accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity of matter/mind - and I
> don't attribute any morality to this. Morality is important in our human
> societies - since we lack innate knowledge - but- it is an issue for
> sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and religious systems.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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 you would be more careful with
> your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
> which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.
>
> ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
> relevant.
>
> GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
> refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the term
> 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even Peirce's
> suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
>
> I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react with
> the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
> would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)
>
> And that is all.
>
> ET: 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 emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really creator
> of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the singular reality
> which is God. Of course I can't be expected to present in an email
> message anything analyzing or explaining " 'why' such a creation
> emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does"  (btw, 'force' is also
> associated by Peirce with 2ns, not 3ns, continuity, etc.)
>
> But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
> considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce has in
> mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his semeiotic and
> cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's essay, " A
> Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God
> 
> ."

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 his outline of god was on the conduct of
human behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural
world - and in human understanding of our world.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:57 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 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, 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 world; ie, that 'movement and change
exists; that causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of
time - leads one to wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so
on.

That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is
that is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or
'reasoning and organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another
issue - since it adds in dimensions of experience that have nothing
to do with 'Mind'...such as worship, devotion, the narratives of
heaven/hell and morality. These other issues, which are attributes of
an organized religion, are sociological rather than philosophical in
nature. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com [2] sent:
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 emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does.
When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A
Neglected Argument   for the Reality of God", he is referencing a
very old idea, from   Aquinas or some other Scholastic
philosopher, that God's reality   does not require explanation, a
"why", He does not need it,   because (at least in the
monotheistic version) God is necessary,   not contingent. I.e.,
God causes the rest of things but nothing   causes God and
nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is   already
necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back to   Aristotle
at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic. 

Best, Ben On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  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!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition! 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
emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does. Peirce often
referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'  and even
'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.  As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but evolution
certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of evolution is to
increase complexity via diversity and networking of matter. The
FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the dissipation
of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not Neo-Darwinism, which
is a mechanical, random and almost pointless process. This evolution
has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits
in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'. But there is
no utopian Finale! Edwina  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:  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

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 sidetrack
into 'terminology' rather than the issue. And that includes your
other sidetrack comment about 'force'. After a while - if one gets
'hung up' on terms, the whole issue is abandoned. We don't always
discuss issues using strictly and only Peircean terminology; we
sometimes, sadly,  stray into common linguistic usage. 

So- the 'singular reality which is god' - is still not defined. And
to say that an email can't explain the 'what' and the 'why' is,
frankly, not an argument. 

I don't see that Peirce's use of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' as analogies
for the term of 'god' even suggests for one second that the term of
'god' is higher in validity, power, functionality or meaning or
whatever! They all refer to the same thing!! And as I've said many
times before - to Peirce, 'Mind' is NOT confined to the human
species. 

I prefer the term of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' to the term of 'god' -
since the latter term is loaded with mythic, sociological symbolism -
none of which have anything to do with what I see as the
'force'/functionality of 'Mind, Nature, Reason' in our universe.

I consider agapism as 'evolutionary love' [and there's no need to
tell me that Peirce used the term of 'love' for agapism] to be a
confusing term, since both 'evolution' and 'love' are symbolically
loaded with meanings that have absolutely no relevance to what I
understand as agapism - which is the 'tendency of organisms of
mind/matter to connect, network, interact, develop commonalities
[synechism].

As for your rejection of utopianism - with which I obviously agree -
I brought that up only as a reference to your comment about 'purpose'
and 'morality' with regard to evolution. You haven't outlined what
YOU mean by 'purpose' of evolution or morality. I have said that the
only purpose of matter-as-mind is to prevent entropic dissipation of
energy, which is accomplished by increasing diversity and complexity
of matter/mind - and I don't attribute any morality to this. Morality
is important in our human societies - since we lack innate knowledge -
but- it is an issue for sociology/psychology and thus, for civil and
religious systems.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  8:15 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 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 you would be
more careful with your choice of words. In short, the burden is on
you to choose terminology which best expresses your thinking in the
matter, not on me to guess it. 
ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is
not relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does,
that to refer to God as existing is fetishistic if one employs the
term 'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is " even
Peirce's suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?
I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of
"react with the other like things in the environment."Of course, in
that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

 And that is all.

ET: 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 emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

 GR: But it is not any 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the
singular reality which is God. Of course I can't be expected to
present in an email message anything analyzing or explaining " 'why'
such a creation emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does" 
(btw, 'force' is also associated by Peirce with 2ns, not 3ns,
continuity, etc.) 

But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce
has in mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his
semeiotic and cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's
essay, " A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
Reality of God."  https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1
[1] 
From the Abstract: 

In one [of the two additaments with which Peirce concluded the N.A.
but which were not published in the CP] he linked the hypothesis of
God's Reality to his entire theory of logic

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 you would be more careful with
your choice of words. In short, the burden is on you to choose terminology
which best expresses your thinking in the matter, not on me to guess it.

ET:  Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.

GR: OK. I'm in good company suggesting, as Peirce obviously does, that to
refer to God as existing is fetishistic *if* one employs the term
'existence' as he does. Again, given the context, how is "*even Peirce's*
suggestion of fetishism" not relevant?

I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of "react with
the other like things in the environment."Of course, in that sense, it
would be fetichism to say that God "exists" (CP 6.495)

And that is all.

ET: 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 emerged and 'what' this
'force/god' actually does.

GR: But it is not *any* 'reality' that Peirce refers to as "Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience," but exactly the singular reality
which is God. Of course I can't be expected to present in an email message
anything analyzing or explaining " 'why' such a creation emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does" (btw, 'force' is also associated by Peirce
with 2ns, not 3ns, continuity, etc.)

But while I can't offer even a brief outline of the Reality being
considered, anyone here wishing to get a sense of the larger Peirce has in
mind as regards this Reality, esp. as it relates to his semeiotic and
cosmology, I would highly recommend Jon Alan Schmidt's essay, "A Neglected
Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God

." https://philarchive.org/rec/SCHANA-7?all_versions=1

From the Abstract:

In one [of the two additaments with which Peirce concluded the N.A. but
which were not published in the CP] he linked the hypothesis of God's
Reality to his entire theory of logic as semeiotic. . . In the other, he
offered a final outline of his cosmology, in which the Reality of God as
Ens necessarium is indispensable to both the origin and order of our
existing universe of Signs.

ET:  But I am satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as
analogies.

GR: That's fine if one doesn't forget that they are *only* analogies. As he
writes at 6.502: "that analogue of a mind -- *for it is impossible to say
that any human attribute is literally applicable* -- is what [the
pragmaticist] means by "God" (emphasis added).
ET: As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!]
GR: No doubt your definition would differ from mine; and Peirce's as well
if you read "Evolutionary Love" within the scientific context in which it
is framed.

ET: This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in
my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'.
GR: Well, good! For 'agapism' IS evolutionary love.

. . . the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical
necessity, and *the
law of love *are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of
*tychism*, *anancism*, and *agapism (*1893 | Evolutionary Love | CP 6.302;
emphasis added)

ET: But there is no utopian Finale!
GR: A "utopian Finale!" Who suggested any such thing? Certainly not I;
certainly not Peirce.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> 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!!  Therefore, your- and even
> Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not relevant.6.495.  But, the term of
> 'reality' still does not provide a definition!
>
> 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 emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'
> and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the

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 who confuse simple faith
with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.

PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.

The conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough
analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example  there are
others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast cosmological
context.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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, 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 world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
>> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
>> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>>
>> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that
>> is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
>> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
>> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
>> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
>> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
>> rather than philosophical in nature.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> 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 emerged and 'what' this
>> 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
>> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
>> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
>> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
>> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
>> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
>> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
>> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  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!!
>> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
>> definition!
>>
>>  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 emerged and 'what'
>> this 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>>  Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
>> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
>> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>>
>>  As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
>> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
>> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
>> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
>> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
>> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
>> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost

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 topic all it's own.
Also, it fits into levels 4 & 5 of his ethical classes of motives.





On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:02 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> 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 his outline of god was on the conduct of human
> behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural world - and
> in human understanding of our world.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:57 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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, 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 world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
>> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
>> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>>
>> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that
>> is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
>> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
>> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
>> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
>> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
>> rather than philosophical in nature.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>>
>> 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 emerged and 'what' this
>> 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
>> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
>> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
>> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
>> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
>> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
>> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
>> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  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!!
>> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
>> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
>> definition!
>>
>>  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 emerged and 'what'
>> this 'force/god' actually does.
>>
>>  Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
>> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
>> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>>
>>  As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
>> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
>> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
>> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
>> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
>> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
>> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
>> process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

I guess I was thinking about this too narrowly. I am thinking in terms of
abduction in formal logic. I agree that this is seen in the natural world.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:58 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Phyllis, list
>
> I think that's a very interesting question. My interest would be on
> abductive processes - which are novel adaptations - that are found in the
> biological realm. That is, there is no 'human mind' involved, but there is
> definitely Mind involved.
>
> A species, when faced with changes in its environment, must come up with
> some methods to maintain itself as a species but with the capacity to
> interact constructively with this environment. The question then focuses
> on: first: the information received by the organism about 'surprising'
> situations in its environment; second - its capacity to both absorb this
> new data [rather than refusing it as 'noise']; and develop a new method of
> interacting with the new situation.
>
> The fact that this occurs in the natural world; that organisms do evolve
> new capacities [ which sometimes require new body parts or changes in the
> material nature of the organism] - means, in my view, that abduction is a
> natural mental process in all living beings.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:22 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> I've been thinking a good deal about the problem of quantifying affect in
> such a way as to have something from which to abduct. Surprise, delight,
> awe, even disappointment can all lead to an Abductive inference. A computer
> program like Watson can produce plausibilities to explain or diagnose, but
> the getting of the problem or idea in the first place seems to require a
> human mind. I think it may be a problem of qualitative induction. Ideas?
>
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

 

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

I think that's a very interesting question. My interest would be on
abductive processes - which are novel adaptations - that are found in
the biological realm. That is, there is no 'human mind' involved, but
there is definitely Mind involved. 

A species, when faced with changes in its environment, must come up
with some methods to maintain itself as a species but with the
capacity to interact constructively with this environment. The
question then focuses on: first: the information received by the
organism about 'surprising' situations in its environment; second -
its capacity to both absorb this new data [rather than refusing it as
'noise']; and develop a new method of  interacting with the new
situation.

The fact that this occurs in the natural world; that organisms do
evolve new capacities [ which sometimes require new body parts or
changes in the material nature of the organism] - means, in my view,
that abduction is a natural mental process in all living beings.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:22 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
 I've been thinking a good deal about the problem of quantifying
affect in such a way as to have something from which to abduct.
Surprise, delight, awe, even disappointment can all lead to an
Abductive inference. A computer program like Watson can produce
plausibilities to explain or diagnose, but the getting of the problem
or idea in the first place seems to require a human mind. I think it
may be a problem of qualitative induction. Ideas? 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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, 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 world; ie, that 'movement and change exists; that
> causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of time - leads one to
> wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so on.
>
> That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is that is
> what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or 'reasoning and
> organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another issue - since it adds in
> dimensions of experience that have nothing to do with 'Mind'...such as
> worship, devotion, the narratives of heaven/hell and morality. These other
> issues, which are attributes of an organized religion, are sociological
> rather than philosophical in nature.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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 emerged and 'what' this
> 'force/god' actually does.
>
> When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A Neglected
> Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old idea, from
> Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's reality does not
> require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, because (at least in the
> monotheistic version) God is necessary, not contingent. I.e., God causes
> the rest of things but nothing causes God and nothing is needed in order to
> cause God, He is already necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back
> to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic.
>
> Best, Ben
> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
>
>
>   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!!
> Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
> relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
> definition!
>
>   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 emerged and 'what'
> this 'force/god' actually does.
>
>   Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
> 'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
> satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.
>
>   As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
> [and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
> evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
> evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
> matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
> dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
> Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
> process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
> agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
> complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!
>
>   Edwina
>  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
> sent:
>  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 fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
> So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
> for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
> Reality of God."
>  As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
>   CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
> definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
> creator of all three Universes of Experience.
>   ET: But, I do not doubt

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 world; ie, that 'movement and change
exists; that causality exists...etc...and, along with the reality of
time - leads one to wonder and hypothesize about: First cause and so
on.

That is - Aquinas is looking at the Natural World - and my view is
that is what Peirce was doing. To call 'Nature' or 'Mind' or
'reasoning and organization' by a term of 'god' - that's another
issue - since it adds in dimensions of experience that have nothing
to do with 'Mind'...such as worship, devotion, the narratives of
heaven/hell and morality. These other issues, which are attributes of
an organized religion, are sociological rather than philosophical in
nature.

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  6:16 PM , Ben Udell baud...@gmail.com sent:
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 emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does.
When Peirce calls and defines God as THE ens necessarium in "A
Neglected Argument   for the Reality of God", he is referencing a
very old idea, from   Aquinas or some other Scholastic
philosopher, that God's reality   does not require explanation, a
"why", He does not need it,   because (at least in the
monotheistic version) God is necessary,   not contingent. I.e.,
God causes the rest of things but nothing   causes God and
nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is   already
necessary, not contingent.  I guess it goes back to   Aristotle
at least.  FWIW, I speak as an agnostic. 

Best, Ben On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  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!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition! 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
emerged and 'what' this 'force/god' actually does. Peirce often
referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and 'order'  and even
'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.  As
for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality' [and
I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but evolution
certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of evolution is to
increase complexity via diversity and networking of matter. The
FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the dissipation
of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not Neo-Darwinism, which
is a mechanical, random and almost pointless process. This evolution
has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's agapasm, in my view, fits
in well with this evolving 'rational complex diversity'. But there is
no utopian Finale! Edwina  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:  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 fetishistic
(see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906). So the title of his 1908 essay is
decidedly not "A Neglected Argument for the Existence of God" but,
rather, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God."   As for the
definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:   CSP: THE
word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the definable
proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator
of all three Universes of Experience.  ET: But, I do not doubt
that our universe operates as a "MIND', with all the attributes of
abduction, induction and deduction that can be used to describe the
functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I consider that this is
also Peirce's

[PEIRCE-L] Surprise and other affective states

I've been thinking a good deal about the problem of quantifying affect in
such a way as to have something from which to abduct. Surprise, delight,
awe, even disappointment can all lead to an Abductive inference. A computer
program like Watson can produce plausibilities to explain or diagnose, but
the getting of the problem or idea in the first place seems to require a
human mind. I think it may be a problem of qualitative induction. Ideas?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Ben Udell


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 emerged and 'what'
   this 'force/god' actually does.

When Peirce calls and defines God as THE /ens necessarium/ in "A 
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", he is referencing a very old 
idea, from Aquinas or some other Scholastic philosopher, that God's 
reality does not require explanation, a "why", He does not need it, 
because (at least in the monotheistic version) God is necessary, not 
contingent. I.e., God causes the rest of things but nothing causes God 
and nothing is needed in order to cause God, He is already necessary, 
not contingent.  I guess it goes back to Aristotle at least.  FWIW, I 
speak as an agnostic.


Best, Ben

On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
  


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!!
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition!

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 emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies.

As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!

Edwina
  On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary richmondgary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
  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 fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God."
  As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
   CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.
   ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that
can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view -
and I consider that this is also Peirce's view
   If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the
world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course,
the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism.
There are indeed many.
   ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the
Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of
energy]; no inherent morality etc.
  Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce.
See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893),
the last in The Monist series. Joseph Ransdell described it as " An
impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution,
set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was
coming into ascendance."
  Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any
atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who
do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of
theism.
  For anyone who wants to delve deeper into

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

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 mood, as
a question meriting attention and reply, up through all appraisals of
Plausibility, to uncontrollable inclination to believe" (CP 6.469, EP
2:441, 1908). Rather than Ockham's razor, he connects it with Galileo's *il
lume naturale*, according to which "of two hypotheses, the *simpler *is to
be preferred"--not "the *logically* simpler" in Ockham's sense, "the one
that adds the least to what has been observed," but "the simpler hypothesis
in the sense of the more facile and natural, the one that instinct
suggests" (CP 6.477, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:50 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> 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 of God.
> Plausibility is not probabilty. Probability is a dimension of induction,
> and is about counting forwards, and comparing the figures. Plausibility: Is
> it a measure, though it does not have a calculatable value, of possibility?
> But without a value it is not a measure, like probability is. Rather an
> estimation? A phenomenon? A positive-logic-thing? Then positive logic needs
> negations too: It negates higher numbers of explanations for a lower
> number, mostly 1, of experienced qualities. Is that phaneroscopic
> acceptance?  While negative logic negates impossibilities one by one, and
> acceptance is based on these negations.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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!! 
Therefore, your- and even Peirce's  suggestion of fetishism is not
relevant.6.495.  But, the term of 'reality' still does not provide a
definition!

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 emerged and 'what'
this 'force/god' actually does.

Peirce often referred to 'god' as Mind 6.502, and 'reason' ..and
'order'  and even 'nature' 8.211. TO me, these are the key terms. 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'. But I am
satisfied with Peirce's use of Mind, Reason, Nature as analogies. 

As for evolution, I certainly don't see it as having any 'morality'
[and I think the term of 'morality' needs to be defined!!] but
evolution certainly has a purpose. In my view, the 'purpose' of
evolution is to increase complexity via diversity and networking of
matter. The FUNCTION of such  complexity networking is to prevent the
dissipation of matter to  free energy. This is certainly not
Neo-Darwinism, which is a mechanical, random and almost pointless
process. This evolution has an 'agenda', so to speak, and Peirce's
agapasm, in my view, fits in well with this evolving 'rational
complex diversity'. But there is no utopian Finale!

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21  4:32 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 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 fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906).
So the title of his 1908 essay is decidedly not "A Neglected Argument
for the Existence of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God." 
 As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:
  CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.   
  ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that
can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view -
and I consider that this is also Peirce's view  
  If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the
world would he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course,
the N.A. is hardly the only place where he discusses his theism.
There are indeed many.
  ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the
Universe; no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of
energy]; no inherent morality etc.  
 Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce.
See, for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893),
the last in The Monist series. Joseph Ransdell described it as " An
impassioned and lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution,
set in sharp contrast with the Social Darwinist conception which was
coming into ascendance." 
 Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any
atheist's viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who
do not share that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of
theism. 
 For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the
reality of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic
definition of God (CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A
Neglected Argument (CP 6.490) 
 Best,
 Gary R
 “LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
 Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York 
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
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 reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be

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 fetishistic (see: CP 6.495, ca. 1906). So the title of
his 1908 essay is decidedly *not* "A Neglected Argument for the *Existence*
of God" but, rather, "A Neglected Argument for the *Reality* of God."

As for the definition of God, the essay begins with this assertion:

CSP: THE word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience.

ET: But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND', with all
the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be used to
describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I consider that
this is also Peirce's view

If your atheistic view "is also Peirce's view," then why in the world would
he write an essay on the reality of God? And, of course, the N.A. is hardly
the only place where he discusses his theism. There are indeed many.

ET:  But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc.

Yes, there are certainly those who see evolution, for example, as
purposeless, lacking morality, etc. But one can't say that of Peirce. See,
for prime example, his famous essay, "Evolutionary Love" (1893), the last
in *The Monist* series. Joseph Ransdell described it as "An impassioned and
lyrical defense of a rationality model for evolution, set in sharp contrast
with the Social Darwinist conception which was coming into ascendance."

Of course none of the above is meant to try to change your or any atheist's
viewpoint, but it does mean to suggest that those of us who do not share
that viewpoint can appeal to Peirce for support of theism.

For anyone who wants to delve deeper into Peirce's argument for the reality
of God, you might want to take a look at his pragmatistic definition of God
(CP 6.502 - 503) and the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument (CP
6.490)

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:38 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> 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 reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent within
> our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates as a "MIND',
> with all the attributes of abduction, induction and deduction that can be
> used to describe the functioning of a Mind. That is, my view - and I
> consider that this is also Peirce's view - is that the hylomorphic
> operation of matter and mind means that matter is always organized in its
> Form, such that it can both interact with other Forms of Matter, and
> replicate these Forms and interactions in continuity. This organization of
> interactions and continuity of material form is obviously a function of
> Mind. But there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe;
> no agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
> inherent morality etc.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> 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.
>
>
> There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
> God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
> notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
> the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
> very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
> self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
>
> GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
> experience.
>
>
> Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html),
> 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.
>
> CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson

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 Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
> God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
> notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
> the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
> very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
> self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
>
> GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
> *experience*.
>
>
> Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html),
> 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.
>
> CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the
> universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the
> force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the
> historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it
> finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call
> upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find
> Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to *il lume
> naturale*. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)
>
>
> Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon
> guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
>> scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
>> the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
>> using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
>> uses.
>>
>> However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
>> "retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In
>> that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
>> thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
>> that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
>> question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
>> singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
>> or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.
>>
>> So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
>> Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
>> own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
>> through that lengthy review with me.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> “Let everything happen to you
>> Beauty and terror
>> Just keep going
>> No feeling is final”
>> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
> l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the
> message and nothing in the body.  More at
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Helmut Raulien

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 of God. Plausibility is not probabilty. Probability is a dimension of induction, and is about counting forwards, and comparing the figures. Plausibility: Is it a measure, though it does not have a calculatable value, of possibility? But without a value it is not a measure, like probability is. Rather an estimation? A phenomenon? A positive-logic-thing? Then positive logic needs negations too: It negates higher numbers of explanations for a lower number, mostly 1, of experienced qualities. Is that phaneroscopic acceptance? While negative logic negates impossibilities one by one, and acceptance is based on these negations.

Best, Helmut

08. September 2021 um 18:47 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:

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.

There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).

GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from experience.

Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html), 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.

CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)

Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond wrote:

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 still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general uses.

However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from experience.

So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

Gary Richmond

Philosophy and Critical Thinking

Communication Studies

LaGuardia College of the City University of New York

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this

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 reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind.
That is, my view - and I consider that this is also Peirce's view -
is that the hylomorphic operation of matter and mind means that
matter is always organized in its Form, such that it can both
interact with other Forms of Matter, and replicate these Forms and
interactions in continuity. This organization of interactions and
continuity of material form is obviously a function of Mind. But
there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc. 

Edwina
 On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 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.
 There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the
hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in
accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which
includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific
inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility,
whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled
growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908). 
 GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
experience.
 Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[1]), 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.
 CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that
the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders
itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially
inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its
logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven
in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its
instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern
science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55,
1898)
 Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully
soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond  wrote:
  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 still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today,
namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to
cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free
for more general uses.  
 However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments
that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis
added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of
colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across,
or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some
likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and
so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question
regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or
retroduction is invariably from  experience.
 So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a
teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to
help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too
tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.
 Best,
 Gary R 
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
 BEAUTY AND TERROR
 JUST KEEP GOING
 NO FEELING IS FINAL”
 ― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York  


Links:
--
[1]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

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.

There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the hypothesis of
God's reality to be legitimately scientific in accordance with his broad
notion of the scope of science, which includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is
the First Stage of a scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the
very highest Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
self-controlled growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).

GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
*experience*.

Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html), 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.

CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the
universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders itself to the
force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially inverting the
historical order, in order to state the process in its logical order--it
finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call
upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find
Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to *il lume
naturale*. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55, 1898)

Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully soon
guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> 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 still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
> scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
> the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
> using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
> uses.
>
> However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
> "retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In
> that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
> thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
> that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
> question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
> singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
> or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.
>
> So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
> Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
> own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
> through that lengthy review with me.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

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' synonymously.


Indeed, I cited Phyllis's article about this (
http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction)
where she claims that abduction "refers to a distinct form of logical
inference," while retroduction is "the form of a deliberate and overarching
logical method which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for
its full performance." As I said at the time, I find this unpersuasive
because "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" is unambiguous in
identifying retroduction as "the First Stage of Inquiry," followed by
deduction and then induction (CP 6.468-473, EP 2:440-442, 1908). Moreover,
I have found only two places where Peirce uses both terms in the same
passage, and they are not consistent with the specific distinction that
Phyllis proposes.

CSP:  There are in science three fundamentally different kinds of
reasoning, Deduction (called by Aristotle συναγωγή or ἀναγωγή), Induction
(Aristotle's and Plato's ἐπαγωγή), and Retroduction (Aristotle's ἀπαγωγή,
but misunderstood because of corrupt text, and as misunderstood usually
translated *abduction*). (CP 1.65, c. 1896)

CSP:  This kind of reasoning is very often called *adopting a hypothesis
for the sake of its explanation of known facts* ...
This probable reasoning in the second figure is, I apprehend, what
Aristotle meant by ἀπαγωγή. There are strong reasons for believing that in
the chapter on the subject in the Prior Analytics, there occurred one of
those many obliterations in Aristotle's MS due to its century long exposure
to damp in a cellar, which the blundering Apellicon, the first editor,
filled up with the wrong word. Let me change but one word of the text, and
the meaning of the whole chapter is metamorphosed in such a way that it no
longer breaks the continuity of the train of Aristotle's thought, as in our
present text it does but so as to bring it into parallelism with another
passage, and to cause the two examples, like the generality of Aristotle's
examples, to represent reasonings current at his time, instead of being, as
our text makes them, the one utterly silly and other nearly as bad.
Supposing this view to be correct, ἀπαγωγή should be translated not by the
word *abduction*, as the custom of the translators is, but rather by
reduction or *retroduction*. In these lectures I shall generally call this
type of reasoning *retroductlon*. (NEM 4:183, RLT 140-141, 1898)


I find it to be quite clear here, as well as from the many texts where
Peirce uses only one word or the other, that he considers the two terms to
be effectively synonymous. "Abduction" is the usual and traditional
translation of Aristotle's *ἀπαγωγή*, which likewise also means
"kidnapping" in Greek, so he might have felt obliged to maintain it while
seeking to capitalize on the widespread interest in pragmatism during the
several years after William James first popularized it (and credited Peirce
with founding it) in 1898. However, he strongly suspected corruption of the
original text and believed that "retroduction" better captures what
Aristotle really intended.

The excerpts in the online Commens Dictionary support this interpretation,
suggesting that Peirce mainly uses "hypothesis" until the mid-1890s (
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/hypothesis-%5Bas-a-form-of-reasoning%5D),
then "retroduction" for the rest of that decade (
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/retroduction), and then "abduction"
from roughly 1901 to 1906 (http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/abduction).
The inclusion of so many texts that he wrote during those six years
accounts for the fact that CP has some 149 instances of
"abduction(s)/abductive(ly)" but only 58 of
"retroduction(s)/retroductive(ly)," while in EP 2 the tally is even more
lopsided at roughly 134 to 25.  Nevertheless, even within that time period
he plainly expresses dissatisfaction with "abduction."

CSP:  In what then does the soundness of argument consist?
In order to answer that question it is necessary to recognize three
radically different kinds of arguments which I signalized in 1867 and which
had been recognized by the logicians of the eighteenth century, although
those logicians quite pardonably failed to recognize the inferential
character of one of them. Indeed, I suppose that the three were given by
Aristotle in the *Prior Analytics*, although the unfortunate illegibility
of a single word in his manuscript and its replacement by a wrong word by
his first editor, the stupid [Apellicon]* has completely altered the sense
of the chapter on Abduction. At any rate, even if my conjecture is wrong,
and the text must stand as it is, still Aristotle, in that chapter on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry Into Inquiry

2021-09-08 Thread Jon Awbrey


Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Balance
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/08/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-balance/

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2005/12/09/inquiry-into-inquiry/

All,

Everyone knows what it means to have obstacles to overcome or events to 
understand and
how we go hunting for whatever action, model, or theory will do the trick.  
Other times
we have a scheme or theory all ready in mind — like a key we try on every door 
we find.

It is not unusual to shift from one stance to the other, perhaps many times a 
day,
and even the most balanced among us may pass through phases of life exploring 
the
extremes in one direction or the other.  Luckily if all too painfully, an inward
sense of disharmony or an outward clash with reality will nudge us back to 
center,
if we but pay the due attention.

Regards,

Jon

On 12/21/2012 2:28 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

Here are the prettified versions
of some recent posts to the List:

Paradigms, Playgrounds, Programmes, Programs
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ml

Demonstrative And Otherwise
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ms

Constants, Inconstants, and Higher Order Propositions
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-mM

Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 1
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-n0

Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 2
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-na

Salubrious Solstice!

Jon



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

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 still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today, namely,
the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to cause. And
using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free for more general
uses.

However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments that
"retroduction is from *experience* to hypothesis" (emphasis added). In that
sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of colors the painter
thinks might best get her artistic vision across, or the scientist's guess
that such and such an hypothesis has some likelihood of conforming to the
question to nature asked by him and so worth testing, or the peculiar,
singular, and very vague question regarding the reality of God, the guess,
or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from *experience*.

So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a teapot.
Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to help clarify my
own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too tedious for you to go
through that lengthy review with me.

Best,

Gary R

“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*







On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Phyllis Chiasson <
phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 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 phenomenal explorations. This is, I believe the key to
>> identifying and norming abduction.
>>
>> GR: I agree.
>>
>> PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a
>> synonym for it.
>>
>>
>> GR: I'm glad you brought this up since I've known for some time now that
>> you see it this way. I see it somewhat differently, however.
>>
>> 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' synonymously. As you do, I thought then and
>> I think now that they could be and ought to be profitably distinguished as
>> having two slightly different meanings, or at least somewhat different
>> connotations. However, I distinguish them in what I take to be the opposite
>> of the way in which you do.
>>
>> You say that "abduction is an aspect of retroduction" while,
>> contrariwise, I would contend that retroduction is an aspect of abduction.
>> Abduction seems to me to be the broader idea as it has its place in such
>> non-scientific areas as art creation and the like. Retroduction -- which in
>> the N.A. Peirce calls "the First Stage of Inquiry." And he remarks that
>> its characteristic formula of reasoning [is] . . . from consequent to
>> antecedent." Yet, more to your point, in that very same essay he remarks
>> that the advance of science "is  first laid by Retroduction alone, that
>> is to say, by the spontaneous conjectures of *instinctive reason*"
>> (emphasis added). "Instinctive reason" and "reasoning from consequent to
>> antecedent" are hardly identical!
>>
>> Later in that essay he again remarks that ". . . this mode of inference,
>> or, if you please, this step toward inference, in which an explanatory
>> hypothesis is first suggested, [I call] by the name of *retroduction*,
>> since *it regresses from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent*"
>> (emphasis added). He then adds this somewhat puzzling comment:
>>
>> CSP: The word “retroductive,” however, is surplusage [or as we might say
>> today, is superfluous]; for every hypothesis, however arbitrary, is
>> suggested by something observed, whether externally or internally and such
>> suggestion is, from a purely logical point of view, retroduction.
>>
>>
>> To my way of thinking, whether one sees retroduction as either more a
>> matter of informed 'guessing' or more as a logical move, 'an inference
>> from effect to cause', the key point, I think, is that the "guess" or
>> "inference" is the result of *experience*:
>>
>> CSP: . . . the stimulus to guessing, the hint of the conjecture, was
>> derived from experience.

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 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
> phenomenal explorations. This is, I believe the key to identifying and
> norming abduction.
>
> GR: I agree.
>
> PC: BTW I contend that abduction is an aspect of retroduction, not a
> synonym for it.
>
>
> GR: I'm glad you brought this up since I've known for some time now that
> you see it this way. I see it somewhat differently, however.
>
> 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' synonymously. As you do, I thought then and
> I think now that they could be and ought to be profitably distinguished as
> having two slightly different meanings, or at least somewhat different
> connotations. However, I distinguish them in what I take to be the opposite
> of the way in which you do.
>
> You say that "abduction is an aspect of retroduction" while, contrariwise,
> I would contend that retroduction is an aspect of abduction. Abduction
> seems to me to be the broader idea as it has its place in such
> non-scientific areas as art creation and the like. Retroduction -- which in
> the N.A. Peirce calls "the First Stage of Inquiry." And he remarks that
> its characteristic formula of reasoning [is] . . . from consequent to
> antecedent." Yet, more to your point, in that very same essay he remarks
> that the advance of science "is  first laid by Retroduction alone, that
> is to say, by the spontaneous conjectures of *instinctive reason*"
> (emphasis added). "Instinctive reason" and "reasoning from consequent to
> antecedent" are hardly identical!
>
> Later in that essay he again remarks that ". . . this mode of inference,
> or, if you please, this step toward inference, in which an explanatory
> hypothesis is first suggested, [I call] by the name of *retroduction*,
> since *it regresses from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent*"
> (emphasis added). He then adds this somewhat puzzling comment:
>
> CSP: The word “retroductive,” however, is surplusage [or as we might say
> today, is superfluous]; for every hypothesis, however arbitrary, is
> suggested by something observed, whether externally or internally and such
> suggestion is, from a purely logical point of view, retroduction.
>
>
> To my way of thinking, whether one sees retroduction as either more a
> matter of informed 'guessing' or more as a logical move, 'an inference
> from effect to cause', the key point, I think, is that the "guess" or
> "inference" is the result of *experience*:
>
> CSP: . . . the stimulus to guessing, the hint of the conjecture, was
> derived from experience. The order of the march of suggestion in
> retroduction is from experience to hypothesis.
>
>
> And yet, as Peirce writes in a 1910 letter to Paul Carus, from the logical
> standpoint, "Hypothesis (or, as I now term it, *retroduction*) [is] an
> *inference**," *and he again defines retroduction as "reasoning from
> consequent to antecedent."
>
> 1910 [c.] | On the Three Kinds of Reasoning [R] | MS [R] 755:14
>
> That kind of reasoning by which we are more or less inclined to believe in
> a theory because it explains facts that without the theory would be very
> surprising is what I call Retroduction, or reasoning from consequent to
> antecedent. To understand the legitimacy of this kind of reasoning (often
> and often as it deceives us,) is to understand the legitimacy, the
> truth-leading power of all reasoning.
>
>
> And so, noting that retroduction is an inference in "scientific inquiry,"
> in a 1911 letter to J. H. Keller, Peirce remarks:
>
> CSP: A scientific inquiry must usually, if not always, begin with
> retroduction. An Induction can hardly be sound or at least is to be
> suspected usually, unless it has been preceded by a Retroductive reasoning
> to the same general effect.
>
> Yet, in that letter to Kehler, he remarks the retroduction is, yet,
> "simply a conjecture which arises in the mind" and that he did "not, at
> present, feel quite convinced that any logical form can be assigned that
> will cover all 'Retroductions'. For what I mean by a Retroduction is
> simply a *conjecture* which arises in the mind."
> Finally, and as my parting shot in making the distinction I've arrived at,
> in a non-dated passage Peirce comments on why he moved from calling an
> explanatory hypothesis in science an 'abduction' and instead settling on
> his alternative term, 'retroduction':
>
> CSP: I have hitherto called this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment

2021-09-08 Thread Ben Udell

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 9/8/2021 8:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

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 someone who...

Outlines epidemics, economics etc

Lot of research in networks and connections.

Edwina
  On Wed 08/09/21 12:28 AM , "sowa @bestweb.net" s...@bestweb.net
sent:
  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 Uptons."   Since I had met her uncle Charlie
many times, I am a friend of a friend of Albert Upton.  Many years
ago, Charlie was visiting Washington DC, and dropped by to visit his
former student, Senator Nixon.  So I could also be considered a FOAT
for Nixon's.   John.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A comment