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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

Your analysis completely ignores CP 6.206-208.  You claim that none of the
marks *ever *interact, and only *one *mark has staying power.  But Peirce
very clearly stated that *multiple *lines appear, persist, and together
form "a *new *line, the envelope of those others," such that they
"gradually tend to lose their individuality ...  Many such reacting systems
may spring up in the original continuum; and each of these may itself act
as a first line from which a larger system may be built, in which it in
turn will merge its individuality."  These larger systems are the many
"Platonic worlds," and it is not until *this *point in the story that out
of one of them "is differentiated the particular actual universe of
existence in which we happen to be."  *This *is where I place the Big
Bang--not "the development of 'staying power'" much earlier in the
narrative.

Peirce never confines the habit of persistence to one mark, or even one set
of marks.  He never says or implies that the many reacting systems or the
many Platonic worlds "dissipate" after they have developed the habit of
persistence--not even once our particular existing universe appears on the
scene.  Hence your "reading" is quite simply *not consistent with the text
itself*, which means that it is not a *reading *at all--it is your
imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework.  Do I have my own
biases?  Sure, but I readily acknowledge them, and I am making a good-faith
effort to understand *what Peirce meant* based on *what he actually wrote*.

I frankly find it amusing that you think I am "upset and angry" about any
of this.  I am quite comfortable with my assessment here, and once again
leave it to the good judgment of the List community to separate the wheat
from the chaff.

Regards,

Jon

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before -
>
> Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412,
> 6.217.  I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all,
> have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and
> unlimited possibility" 6.217.
>
> As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes
> of chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere
> accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another
> mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the
> two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will
> *stay* for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a*  habit*
> has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some
> incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency" 6.204.
>
> I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles',
> which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond
> this can be made...until ONE mark will *stay* for a while; i.e., takes on
> Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe.
>
> So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can
> emerge but have no *staying* power...until one such mark DOES develop
> this power..and as such..its consistency makes it dominant as our
> universe's typology of matter/mind.
>
> I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading
> the texts as they are.
> And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which
> develops within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang'
> is not Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big
> Bang, but I read them as POST Big Bang.
>
> And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the
> texts? Of course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently.
> I suppose I'm trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and
> angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your
> analysis.
>
> I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but,
> there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we
> can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually
> comment...
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L
> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's
> Cosmology)
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE

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

[Jerry Rhee]

Edwina, list:

"I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man.

*http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html
<http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html>*

Hth,
Jerry R

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before -
>
> Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412,
> 6.217.  I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all,
> have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and
> unlimited possibility" 6.217.
>
> As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes
> of chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere
> accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another
> mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the
> two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will
> *stay* for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a*  habit*
> has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some
> incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency" 6.204.
>
> I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles',
> which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond
> this can be made...until ONE mark will *stay* for a while; i.e., takes on
> Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe.
>
> So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can
> emerge but have no *staying* power...until one such mark DOES develop
> this power..and as such..its consistency makes it dominant as our
> universe's typology of matter/mind.
>
> I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading
> the texts as they are.
> And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which
> develops within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang'
> is not Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big
> Bang, but I read them as POST Big Bang.
>
> And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the
> texts? Of course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently.
> I suppose I'm trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and
> angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your
> analysis.
>
> I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but,
> there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we
> can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually
> comment...
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L
> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's
> Cosmology)
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang?
>
>
> I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang.  You take it to be
> the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*.
> The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be?  I think
> that the much more likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual
> Existence" emerged from "the whole universe of true and real possibilities"
> as "a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the
> blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162).  So the Platonic worlds must have been 
> *before
> *the Big Bang, because they come *before *the existence of our *particular
> *universe, and all of them but one have *no connection* with the latter
> whatsoever.
>
> ET:  But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began
> to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.
>
>
> Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208?  Where in that passage does it say
> that only *one *set of chalk marks began to take habits?  On the
> contrary, it states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring
> up," and that we are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds.
> Where does it say that one of these "became dominant" over the others?
> Where does it suggest that *any *merged aggregation of chalk marks,
> having developed the habit of persistence, would have--or even could
> have--"dissipated"?  This is not a legitimate *reading *of the text, it
> is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it.
>
> ET

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - 

Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, 6.217.  I 
do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, have some 
identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility" 
6.217.

As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes of 
chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere accident, and 
as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another mark drawn in quite 
another way. There need be no consistency between the two. But no further 
progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will stay for a little while; 
that is, until some beginning of a  habit has been established by virtue of 
which the accident acquires some incipient staying quality, some tendency 
toward consistency" 6.204.

I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles', 
which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond this 
can be made...until ONE mark will stay for a while; i.e., takes on 
Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe.

So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can emerge 
but have no staying power...until one such mark DOES develop this power..and as 
such..its consistency makes it dominant as our universe's typology of 
matter/mind.

I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading the 
texts as they are. 
And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which develops 
within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang' is not 
Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big Bang, but I 
read them as POST Big Bang. 

And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the texts? Of 
course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently. I suppose I'm 
trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and angry about the 
fact that others don't always accept your view and your analysis. 

I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but, 
there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we can 
come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually comment...

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien 
  Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)


  Edwina, List:


ET:  Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang?


  I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang.  You take it to be the 
beginning of everything; before the Big Bang, there was nothing.  The real 
question is, what would Peirce have taken it to be?  I think that the much more 
likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual Existence" emerged from "the 
whole universe of true and real possibilities" as "a discontinuous mark--like a 
line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162).  So the 
Platonic worlds must have been before the Big Bang, because they come before 
the existence of our particular universe, and all of them but one have no 
connection with the latter whatsoever.


ET:  But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began 
to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.


  Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208?  Where in that passage does it say 
that only one set of chalk marks began to take habits?  On the contrary, it 
states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring up," and that we 
are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds.  Where does it say that 
one of these "became dominant" over the others?  Where does it suggest that any 
merged aggregation of chalk marks, having developed the habit of persistence, 
would have--or even could have--"dissipated"?  This is not a legitimate reading 
of the text, it is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it.


ET:  I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read 
the texts differently ...


  We should not block the way of inquiry by assuming that, just because we read 
the texts differently, there is no correct (or incorrect) way to read the texts.


ET:  ... but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are 
different views on this issue


  Do you really think that anyone on the List is not aware of this by now?


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

Gary R, Helmut:

The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEF

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang?


I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang.  You take it to be
the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*.
The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be?  I think
that the much more likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual
Existence" emerged from "the whole universe of true and real possibilities"
as "a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the
blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162).  So the Platonic worlds must have
been *before
*the Big Bang, because they come *before *the existence of our
*particular *universe,
and all of them but one have *no connection* with the latter whatsoever.

ET:  But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began
to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.


Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208?  Where in that passage does it say
that only *one *set of chalk marks began to take habits?  On the contrary,
it states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring up," and
that we are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds.  Where does
it say that one of these "became dominant" over the others?  Where does it
suggest that *any *merged aggregation of chalk marks, having developed the
habit of persistence, would have--or even could have--"dissipated"?  This
is not a legitimate *reading *of the text, it is the imposition of a
predetermined conceptual framework on it.

ET:  I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read
the texts differently ...


We should not block the way of inquiry by assuming that, just because we
read the texts differently, there is no correct (or incorrect) way to read
the texts.

ET:  ... but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are
different views on this issue


Do you really think that anyone on the List is *not *aware of this by now?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Gary R, Helmut:
>
> The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big
> Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In
> my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic
> worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set
> began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.
>
> I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the
> texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that
> there are different views on this issue.
>
> Edwina
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Gary Richmond]

Edwina, Helmut, Jon S, Jeff, John, Clark, List,

In a passage preceding the one I recently quoted twice, Peirce writes:

[A]s a rule the continuum has been derived from a more general continuum, a
continnum of higher generality.

>From this point of view we must suppose that the existing universe with all
its arbitrary secondness is an offshoot from, or an arbitrary
determination, of a world of ideas, a Platonic world [. . .] [Note: *not* an
existential world but "a world of ideas, a Platonic world."]

If that is correct, we cannot suppose the process of derivation, a process
which extends from before time and from before logic, we cannot suppose
that it began elsewhere than in the utter vagueness of completely
undetermined and dimensionless potentiality. [Note: "before time" in "utter
vagueness" not of nothing but of "completely undetermined and
dimensionsless potentiality."]

The evolutionary process is, therefore, not a mere evolution of the *existing
universe*, but rather a process by which the very Platonic forms themselves
have become or are becoming developed. [Note: the topic here is of an
evolutionary process *not *merely "of the *existing universe,*" emphasis in
the original.]

We shall naturally suppose, of course, that existence is a stage of
evolution. *This existence* is presumably but a special *existence*. We
need not suppose that every form needs for its evolution to emerge into
this world, but only that it needs to enter into *some* theater of
reactions of which it is one. [Note:
*This existence* is presumably but a special *existence;"* further*, *consider
the language he uses of the possibility of emerging *not* into this
world--our Universe--but merely "*some* theater of reactions"--I have
commented elsewhere that this suggests a possibly multi-universe theory. GR]


The evolution of forms begins, or at any rate, has for an early stage of
it, a vague potentiaility, and that either is or is followed by a continuum
of forms having a multitude of dimensions too great for the individual
dimensions to be distinct. It must be a contraction of the vagueness of
that potentiality of *everything in general and of nothing in particular* that
the world of forms comes forth. [emphasis added, RLT, 259]


So, as I read this, it is not here a matter of 'nothing at all' as Edwina
claims, but the "potentiality of everything in general and nothing in
paritcular" that is still but merely the ground from which, *not* this
*existential
world*, but "the world of forms" can emerge. I'd call that *way *pre-Big
Bang.

One can, I suppose, try to position these comments within the procrustean
bed of *our* special, existential, post-Big Bang  world in which Edwina
would try to fit it, but to me such a reading flies in the face of this
passage, the one I was earlier quoting, the whole of this lecture, and much
else that Peirce wrote (including, the N.A.)

Best,

Gary R

[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

> Gary R, Helmut:
>
> The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big
> Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In
> my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic
> worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set
> began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.
>
> I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the
> texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that
> there are different views on this issue.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 4:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's
> Cosmology)
>
> Helmut, List,
>
> Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may
> prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt),
> Peirce wrote *this* (embedded in an argument which makes his position--
> that there is a Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian
> one issues--quite clear).
>
> Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, *is not of the order of the
> existing universe,* but is merely a Platonic world  of which we are,
> therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and
> subordinated to one another until *finally one of these Platonic worlds
> is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we
> happen to be*." (RLT, 263, emphasis added).
>

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

Gary R, Helmut:

The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big 
Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In my 
reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. But 
after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began to take 
habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated.

I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the texts 
differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are 
different views on this issue.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Gary Richmond 
  To: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)


  Helmut, List,


  Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may 
prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), Peirce 
wrote this (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- that there is a 
Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian one issues--quite 
clear).


Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, is not of the order of the existing 
universe, but is merely a Platonic world  of which we are, therefore, to 
conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another 
until finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular 
actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." (RLT, 263, emphasis 
added).


  The immediate question as I see it is: How did Peirce conceive of this 
matter? I would highly recommend that anyone looking into that question read 
carefully RLT, esp. 261-264.



  Best,


  Gary R








  Gary Richmond
  Philosophy and Critical Thinking
  Communication Studies
  LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
  C 745
  718 482-5690


  On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

Edwina, list,
I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with 
Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, 
that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as 
philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of metaphors, whatever. So 
there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big bang is said to be not only 
the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you suggest a meta-time, in a 
meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning is merely postponed to that: 
Did the meta-universe come from a meta-big-bang? I only have two possible 
explanations for this problem of origin/beginning: Either there was no 
beginning/creation, and no big bang (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe 
some weeks ago) , or there is a circle of creation, like: A creates B, B 
creates C, C creates A. But this would mean, that creation is atemporal, 
otherwise it would not work. But I like it, and maybe it is good for some quite 
funny science-fiction story. But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is 
everywhere, is "God", and it forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! 
This is getting weird, I have to think some more about it first.
Best,
Helmut
  
 04. November 2016 um 19:44 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
 
Gary R - again, it is my strong sense that I am accurately representing 
Peirce's views on this issue. I don't see that I disagree with him at all - but 
I do disagree with you and Jon on this issue [and, obviously, on theistic 
issues as well]. 

That is - I don't see a Nothing, which is to say, the pre BigBang world, as 
a set of Platonic worlds. If this were the case, then, it would not be nothing 
but would be sets of ideal potentialities. Instead,  it is nothing, 'pure 
zero', pure freedom, no variety of Platonic worlds which after all, establish 
different perspectives, it is "absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility' 
...not a SET of Platonic worlds. [1.412, 6.217]. 

Then, with the BigBang, this set up the Blackboard 'the original vague 
potentiality' and moved into that set of multiple possible Platonic worlds 
within the phase of Firstness and Secondness. At this time, these 'bits' were 
without habits [Thirdness] - that's what provides them with their potentiality; 
it is possible that many chalkmarks appeared. "Many such reacting systems 
may spring up in the original continuum; and each of these may itself acts as a 
first line from which a larger system may be built, in which it in turn will 
merge its individuality" 6.207.  This is POST BigBang.

With these multiple sets - the universe could have gone anywhere; some of 
those 'bits' could have dissipated; others could have emerged; some could have 
stayed. But THEN - came the development of habits, Thirdness - and these habits 
established our particular world rather than one of the oth

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

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, list,

Yes, that is what I suspect too: It is not about chronologic: Creation, God, necessity, causality. Due to our limited human experience we cannot see these things other than in time flow, chronologically, so likely with a beginning. But maybe causation and time flow are not so strictly connected with each other as we think! Maybe they are two different things, that merely happen to occur parallelly just for us, but not necessarily for, like, God, or whoever.

Best,

Helmut

 

Freitag, 04. November 2016 um 21:42 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Helmut, List:
 

The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, assuming that they have remained essentially unchanged since then.  (Peirce, of course, held that they have evolved, and are still subject to minute spontaneous variations.)  Consequently, as Gary R. has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in Peirce's cosmology at all, it can only correspond to the beginning of our existing universe.  Everything that comes before that in Peirce's blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must precede the Big Bang.  Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the beginning of time, "precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically; but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began.  The only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to recognize the necessity of necessary Being--Ens necessarium--which Peirce explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument."

 

Regards,

 







Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

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





 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Edwina, list,

I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I have to think some more about it first.

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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

Gary R, Jon S, List,

The pages you and Jon are examining (RLT 261-4) are quite challenging. The 
guiding aims of the lecture, he tells us on the first page, are (1) to work out 
the logical difficulties involved in the conception of continuity, and then (2) 
to address the metaphysical difficulties associated with the conception. What 
is needed, he says, is a better method of reasoning about continuity in 
philosophy generally.

It looks to me like the mathematical survey of the relationships he notes 
between topology, projective geometry and metrical geometries are being used to 
set up the arguments. Likewise, the phenomenological thought experiment 
involving the cave of odors is also doing some work.

The mathematical examples he offers are meant, I am supposing, to offer us with 
some nice case studies that we can use to study the methods that have been 
taking shape in the 19th century in order to handle mathematical questions 
about continuity in topology and projective geometry. One goal of this 
discussion, I assume, is to analyze these examples in order to see how those 
mathematical methods might be applied to the logical difficulties involved in 
working with the conception.

Then, the phenomenological experiment is designed as an exercise that helps to 
limber us up for the challenges we face. The goal is to provide us with some 
exercises of the imagination in which we are being asked to explore 
arrangements of odors in spaces that are markedly different from our typical 
experience of how things that are spatially arranged. One of the key ideas, I 
believe, is that this imaginative exploration does not involve any kind of 
optical ray of light or any physical straight bar that might be used to apply 
projective or metrical standards to the spatial arrangements.

The big conclusion he draws from both the mathematical and phenomenological 
investigations is logical in character: "A continuum may have any discrete 
multitude of dimensions whatsoever. If the multiude of dimensions surpasses all 
discrete multitudes there cease to be any distinct dimensions. I have not as 
yet obtained any logically distinct conception of such a continuum. 
Provisionally, I identify it with the uralt vague generality of the most 
abstract potentiality." (253-4) On page 257, he makes the transition from the 
attempt to draw on mathematics and phenomenology for the sake of addressing the 
logical difficulties associated with the concept of continuity, and the then 
takes up the metaphysical difficulties.

Before turning to the questions of theological metaphysics that he takes up on 
258-9 or the example of the diagrams on the blackboard shortly thereafter, let 
me ask a question. In the Additament to the Neglected Argument, he makes use of 
the conception of Super-order. I am wondering if there is anything in his 
discussion of mathematics and phenomenology in the first part of this last 
lecture in RLT that might help us to clarify this conception of Super-order? 
What I'd like to do is to work towards a more adequate understanding of that 
conception and then see if it could be used to shed some light on the points he 
is making on pages 258-64--or vice versa.

--Jeff









Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:04 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Helmut, List,

Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may prove 
to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), Peirce wrote 
this (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- that there is a 
Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian one issues--quite 
clear).

Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, is not of the order of the existing 
universe, but is merely a Platonic world  of which we are, therefore, to 
conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another 
until finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular 
actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." (RLT, 263, emphasis 
added).

The immediate question as I see it is: How did Peirce conceive of this matter? 
I would highly recommend that anyone looking into that question read carefully 
RLT, esp. 261-264.

Best,

Gary R


[Gary Richmond]

Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Helmut Raulien 
<h.raul...@gmx.de<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Edwina, list,
I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with 
Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, 
that "singularity" is not only a matter of physi

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past
when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing
our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature
came into being, *assuming *that they have remained essentially unchanged
since then.  (Peirce, of course, held that they have *evolved*, and are
still subject to minute spontaneous variations.)  Consequently, as Gary R.
has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in
Peirce's cosmology *at all*, it can *only *correspond to the beginning of
our *existing *universe.  Everything that comes *before *that in Peirce's
blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the
aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of
those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must *precede *the Big Bang.
Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the *beginning *of time,
"precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically;
but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter
what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began.  The
only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to
recognize the necessity of necessary Being--*Ens necessarium*--which Peirce
explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument."

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Edwina, list,
> I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with
> Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I
> guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of
> everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of
> metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big
> bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you
> suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning
> is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a
> meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of
> origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang
> (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a
> circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this
> would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I
> like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story.
> But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it
> forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I
> have to think some more about it first.
> 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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Gary Richmond]

t; emergence of matter/mind...and are not separate from it.
>
> Therefore - you and Jon, and others, may certainly reject my reading of
> Peirce, just as I reject yours and Jon's - but, I don't think we are at the
> stage where we can definitely say that only ONE reading is The Accurate
> One. I offer my reading; some on the list may agree; some may not. That is
> as far as a scholarly list can go, I think.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 1:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
>
> Edwina, Jon S, List,
>
> I certainly do not intend to get into a long (or even a short) discussion
> with you, Edwina, on this as both your position and Jon's (and mine) have
> been rather thoroughly and repeatedly articulated. I must say, however,
> that I do not see your "reading" of the blackboard passages as 'fair
> minded' at all, but rather it seems to me to impose your own conceptual
> framework on Peirce's very different one.
>
> For example, at RLT, 263, in the midst of the long and complex blackboard
> discussion, RLT, 261-4, which blackboard Peirce himself refers to as "a
> sort of Diagram of the original vague potentiality," RLT, 261), he comments
> (and I've pointed to this passage before):
>
>
> "[A]ll this, be it remembered, *is not of the order of the existing
> universe,* but is merely a Platonic world  of which we are, therefore, to
> conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one
> another until *finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the
> particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be*." (RLT,
> 263, emphasis added).
>
>
> Now you may disagree with Peirce in this matter, but this is what he
> wrote--the blackboard diagram would seem to represent what he no doubt
> believed to be the character of the cosmos *before* "one of these
> Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of
> existence in which we happen to be," that is, before what corresponds to
> the Big Bang.
>
> It is my strong sense that Jon has consistently accurately presented
> Peirce's views as they appear in the 1898 lecture, and that your remarks
> *contra* his do not represent Peirce's clearly articulated views (as, for
> example, given in the quotation above), but rather your own. They seem to
> me less an interpretation than a misreading of Peirce, one which your
> conceptual framework apparently requires.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690*
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>>
>> Gary R, list:
>>
>> Well, I consider myself a 'fair-minded reader of Peirce' and I certainly
>> don't agree with Jon S's view that the blackboard is pre-Big Bang and that
>> the three Categories are pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial.
>>
>> Of course the blackboard is a metaphor - set out as a diagram...but that
>> diagram is a metaphor of what we assume is that 'original vague
>> potentiality or at any rate of some early stage of its determination'.
>> 6.203. As I said in my earlier post today, my reading is that this
>> blackboard is POST Big Bang, which is why it is a 'continuum of some
>> indefinite multitude of dimensions'. 6.203. This is NOT the same as the
>> pre  Big Bang Zeroness - which is NOTHING.
>>
>> And by 'continuum', I certainly don't see this as Thirdness, for
>> Thirdness is a continuum of *some particular habits*, not just a
>> 'continuum and certainly not of 'indefinite multitude of dimensions. The
>> very nature of Thirdness is its function to constrain novelty and insert
>> morphological habits.
>>
>> As for quibbling about whether the chalk mark is a point or a line -
>> that's irrelevant. It is a unique 'bit' of matter/mind - that is
>> differentiated from what-it-is-not ["the limit between the black surface
>> and the white surface} 6.203].  It's the differentiation from
>> 'what-it-is-not' that is important, for this is obviously Secondness.
>>
>> The first chalkmark exhibits only Firstness [its novel appearance] and
>> Secondness [its differentiation from the blackness] but would only exhibit
>> Thirdness if it stayed 'as it is' and if other chalkmarks appear and they
>> deve

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

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear Gary, list:

Alternatively, I would recommend examining what Peirce thought of Spinoza
before we go down the road you suggest:



Spinoza’s chief work, the “Ethics”, is an exposition of the idea of the
absolute, with a monistic theory of the correspondence between mind and
matter, and applications to the philosophy of living.  It is an *excessively
abstruse doctrine, much misunderstood*, and too complicated for brief
exposition…



Spinoza is described as a pantheist; he identifies God and Nature, but does
not mean by Nature what is ordinarily meant.  Some sayings of Spinoza are
frequently quoted in literature.  One of these is *omnis determinatio est
negation*, “all specification involves exclusion”; another is that matters
must be considered *sub specie aeternitatis*, “under their essential
aspects.”





Hth,

Jerry Rhee

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Jon, Edwina, List,
>
> I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being
> Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire,
> dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is,
> more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of
> Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it)
>
> Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious
> topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in
> fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of
> a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think
> that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as
> buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context).
>
> I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive
> to begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less
> completed the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon
> suggested correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his)
> religious views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more
> or less restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and
> that it would definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and
> when we begin such a discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, List:
>>
>> If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then
>> your approach makes perfect sense.  On the other hand, if we take seriously
>> the hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
>> born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently.  My point
>> was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
>> predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so.  If that
>> is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
>> not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon, list:
>>>
>>> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
>>> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>>>
>>> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is
>>> unique to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
>>> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
>>> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
>>> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>>>
>>> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and
>>> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't
>>> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th
>>> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands
>>> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>>>
>>> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism
>>> is something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in
>>> this area.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
>> BODY of the message. More at 

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

[Gary Richmond]

Jon, Edwina, List,

I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being
Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire,
dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is,
more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of
Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it)

Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious
topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in
fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of
a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think
that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as
buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context).

I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive to
begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less completed
the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon suggested
correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his) religious
views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more or less
restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and that it would
definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and when we begin
such a discussion.

Best,

Gary R

[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Edwina, List:
>
> If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your
> approach makes perfect sense.  On the other hand, if we take seriously the
> hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
> born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently.  My point
> was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
> predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so.  If that
> is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
> not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> Jon, list:
>>
>> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
>> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>>
>> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique
>> to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
>> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
>> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
>> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>>
>> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and
>> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't
>> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th
>> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands
>> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>>
>> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is
>> something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this
>> area.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your
approach makes perfect sense.  On the other hand, if we take seriously the
hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal
born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently.  My point
was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after
predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so.  If that
is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if
not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Jon, list:
>
> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its
> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"
>
> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique
> to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as
> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal
> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found
> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]
>
> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman
> religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such
> influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic
> reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the
> Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story.
>
> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is
> something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this
> area.
>
> Edwina
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon, list: 

Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling 
affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--"

I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique to 
Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as 'pagan'] 
about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal children. Mortals 
born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found in these Greek-Roman 
tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism]

I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman 
religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such 
influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic reaction 
to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the Roman-Byzantine 
empire...but that's another story. 

I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is 
something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this area.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Gary Richmond ; h.raul...@gmx.de 
  Cc: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:22 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)


  Gary, Helmut, List:


  I think that questions of religion come after the kinds of cosmological 
questions that we have been addressing lately.  Once we establish the necessity 
of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can then start inquiring 
about the details.  As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected Argument" ...


CSP:  The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an 
infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, 
supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the 
hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so 
far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and 
more, and without limit  (CP 6.466, EP 2:439)


  Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as 
learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the contents 
of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the summum bonum, 
which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903).  However, since 
God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to know Him.


  With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling 
affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing 
universe--in the person of Jesus.  His claim to divinity thus offers us a 
significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he 
truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly 2,000 
years, then that claim has been decisively validated.


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Helmut, List,



Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion 
for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction 'esoteric' 
vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as we're having. Your 
pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric dimension of religion 
(Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics 
in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction.


And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious 
practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' 
concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a more 
personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in the N.A. 
and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), it seems to 
me that he has a somewhat different, at least quasi-scientific--but certainly, 
logical--goal in mind.


In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance 
of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in 
especially our public discourse.


But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently 
dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want to 
think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably have 
little time to respond online.


Best,


Gary R






Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690


On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

  Gary, list,
  I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, 
people use "God&q

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

[Stephen C. Rose]

I think John who wrote of God as the Word can be helpful in relation to
this subject. Peirce was no stranger to the idea that we talk to one within
us. If one surmises that this is  not an uncommon phenomenon and is itself
worth investigation one might also surmise that whoever God is remains a
mystery in part because this entity is identical with reality (aka creation
in toto) unfolding as we speak. The differentiation between Word and
Creator makes it possible to surmise a connection that is verbal but which
does not need to assume that God is infinite or omniscient or all powerful
-- the common assumptions. Rather God would be the force behind the word
that is the object of our efforts to communicate.

Much talk about God is talk about what we don't and can't know for the
simple reason that reality is unfolding, is continuous, and heads
somewhere.
i

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Gary, Helmut, List:
>
> I think that questions of religion come *after *the kinds of cosmological
> questions that we have been addressing lately.  Once we establish the
> necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can *then
> *start inquiring about the details.  As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected
> Argument" ...
>
> CSP:  The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an
> infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such,
> supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves
> the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as
> true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself
> more and more, and without limit  (CP 6.466, EP 2:439)
>
>
> Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as
> learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the
> contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the 
> *summum
> bonum*, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903).
> However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to
> know Him.
>
> With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling
> affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing
> universe--in the person of Jesus.  His claim to divinity thus offers us a
> significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he
> truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly
> 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Helmut, List,
>>
>> Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and
>> inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the
>> distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a
>> discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as
>> the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism,
>> Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism,
>> etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction.
>>
>> And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious
>> practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague'
>> concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a
>> more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in
>> the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898),
>> it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least 
>> *quasi*-scientific--but
>> certainly, logical--goal in mind.
>>
>> In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes
>> tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often
>> lacking in especially our public discourse.
>>
>> But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am
>> currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention.
>> I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but
>> will probably have little time to respond online.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> [image: Gary Richmond]
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>>> Gary, list,
>>> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other
>>> hand, people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense
>>> of reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have
>>> to visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I 

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

[Gary Richmond]

Helmut, List,

Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion
for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction
'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as
we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric
dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard
and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would
seem to reflect that distinction.

And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious
practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague'
concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a
more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in
the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898),
it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least
*quasi*-scientific--but
certainly, logical--goal in mind.

In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance
of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in
especially our public discourse.

But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently
dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want
to think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably
have little time to respond online.

Best,

Gary R

[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Gary, list,
> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand,
> people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of
> reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to
> visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one
> who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark
> wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution
> of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions
> between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense
> (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two
> things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the
> dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to
> other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not
> based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite
> all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and
> synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic
> parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be
> modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should
> never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
>  29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr
>  "Gary Richmond" 
>
> Clark, list,
>
> Clark wrote:
>
>
> The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process
> approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not
> volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and
> still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or
> disbelieve)
>
>
> The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense,
> while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry *will tend* to lead
> to belief and not its opposite.
>
> As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is
> necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to
> inquire into it such that an *argument* for the reality (not the
> existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A.
> Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought
> reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use
> in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a
> conclusion: an argumentation).
>
> So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps
> later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of
> Experience, and that one will then be *struck by the beauty* of this
> hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in
> guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an i*deal to
> ones conduct* in life. One will come to love this purely "hypothetical
> God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from one's belief
> (including love of ones brothers and sisters).
>
> And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers
> "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of
> Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of 

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

[Helmut Raulien]

r utterly insoluble"; and what did he subsequently say is the result in this particular case?

 


CSP:  ... in the Pure Play of Musement the idea of God's Reality will be sure sooner or later to be found an attractive fancy, which the Muser will develop in various ways.  The more he ponders it, the more it will find response in every part of his mind, for its beauty, for its supplying an ideal of life, and for its thoroughly satisfactory explanation of his whole threefold environment. (CP 6.465)


 

Regards,

 

Jon





 




 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:



Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and linguistic style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't even in my vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves in different phraseology and use different words and that not everyone expresses themselves in YOUR style of _expression_. 

 

Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an argument has been around for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum ad antiquitatem].

 

There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies,  and etc. Doesn't mean a thing.

 

Your reasons  - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such discussions belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is no empirical or logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain amount of speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466.

 

And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis]. 

 

Edwina


- Original Message ----- 

From: Jon Alan Schmidt 



To: Edwina Taborsky

Cc: Helmut Raulien ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM

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

 

Edwina, List:
 


ET:  The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out.


 

And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for an explanation.  Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing?

 


ET:  It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality.


 

I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as almost impossible, rather than just plain impossible?

 


ET:  To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical.


 

The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God indicates otherwise.  You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority.  I have reasons for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have reasons for believing that God is not real.  We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position is more rationally justified.

 


ET:  I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe ...


 

Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings.  There is always a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does.

 


CSP:  But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins."  This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

rote: 'There is always a 'certain
> amount of speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a
> 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466.
>
> And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460,
> "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we
> are forced to recognize a given element in *experience*, it is reasonable
> to *await positive evidence* before we complicate our acknowledgment with
> qualifications'. [my emphasis].
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L
> <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's
> Cosmology)
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as
> Helmut points out.
>
>
> And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls
> for an explanation.  Why is there (now) something, rather than (still)
> nothing?
>
> ET:  It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this
> physico-chemical existentiality.
>
>
> I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as *almost*
> impossible, rather than just plain impossible?
>
> ET:  To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator
> [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is
> no proof - logical or empirical.
>
>
> The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of
> God indicates otherwise.  You may not find any of these "proofs"
> convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor
> that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of
> the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority.  I
> have *reasons *for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you
> presumably have *reasons *for believing that God is *not *real.  We can
> discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position
> is more rationally justified.
>
> ET:  I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this
> physico-chemical existence of the Universe ...
>
>
> Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly
> because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings.  There is always
> a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any
> cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse,
> or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this
> physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first
> place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does.
>
> CSP:  But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding
> intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not
> the business of science to search for origins."  This maxim was a
> masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would
> dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his
> breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into
> what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite
> word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the
>> pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to
>> remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room.
>> I don't.
>>
>> The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut
>> points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this
>> physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a
>> metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either
>> believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical.
>>
>> We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this
>> physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the
>> brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology
>> of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this
>> physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that
>> the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of
>> the pre-univese.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if you 
object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just 
plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and linguistic 
style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't even in my 
vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves in different 
phraseology and use different words and that not everyone expresses themselves 
in YOUR style of expression. 

Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the 
existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. 
That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an argument has been around 
for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum ad antiquitatem].

There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, 
purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies,  and etc. Doesn't mean a 
thing.

Your reasons  - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such discussions 
belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is no empirical or 
logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain amount of 
speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a 'strictly 
hypothetical God' 6.466.

And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That 
human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced 
to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive 
evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my 
emphasis]. 

Edwina




  - Original Message - 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Helmut Raulien ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)


  Edwina, List:


ET:  The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as 
Helmut points out.


  And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for 
an explanation.  Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing?


ET:  It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this 
physico-chemical existentiality.


  I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as almost impossible, 
rather than just plain impossible?


ET:  To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator 
[God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no 
proof - logical or empirical.


  The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God 
indicates otherwise.  You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but 
that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or 
disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely 
a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority.  I have reasons for believing 
that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have reasons for believing 
that God is not real.  We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up 
agreeing on which position is more rationally justified.


ET:  I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this 
physico-chemical existence of the Universe ...


  Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly 
because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings.  There is always a 
certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any 
cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or 
some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this 
physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, 
and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does.


CSP:  But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding 
intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the 
business of science to search for origins."  This maxim was a masterpiece, 
since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what 
"origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the 
awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" 
of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460)


  Regards,


  Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
  Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
  www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


  On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the pre-universe 
is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to remain there for 
those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. I don't.

The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, a

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as
Helmut points out.


And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls
for an explanation.  Why is there (now) something, rather than (still)
nothing?

ET:  It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this
physico-chemical existentiality.


I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as *almost* impossible,
rather than just plain impossible?

ET:  To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator
[God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is
no proof - logical or empirical.


The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of
God indicates otherwise.  You may not find any of these "proofs"
convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor
that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of
the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority.  I
have *reasons *for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you
presumably have *reasons *for believing that God is *not *real.  We can
discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position
is more rationally justified.

ET:  I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this
physico-chemical existence of the Universe ...


Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly
because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings.  There is always
a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any
cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse,
or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this
physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first
place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does.

CSP:  But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding
intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not
the business of science to search for origins."  This maxim was a
masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would
dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his
breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into
what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite
word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460)


Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
wrote:

> I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the
> pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to
> remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room.
> I don't.
>
> The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut
> points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this
> physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a
> metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either
> believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical.
>
> We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this
> physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the
> brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology
> of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this
> physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that
> the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of
> the pre-univese.
>
> Edwina
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Edwina Taborsky]

I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the pre-universe is a 
'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to remain there for those who 
enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. I don't.

The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points 
out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this 
physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical 
non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't 
believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. 

We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this 
physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the brute 
interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology of 
Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this 
physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that the 
Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of the 
pre-univese.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Helmut Raulien 
  To: cl...@lextek.com 
  Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:01 PM
  Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)


  List,
  I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", 
because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, creation, 
tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that reverse-engineering is 
not possible if you only have the status quo, and no symbolic second 
documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of species, because  you 
have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic documentary. But in the 
physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, not even the background 
radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. So, this is merely a 
hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified (demythicized) merely with 
indices and icons. Is that so??
  Best,
  Helmut

  25. Oktober 2016 um 17:43 Uhr
   "Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com> wr0ote: 
On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
  
Clark, List: 

At this point, it seems appropriate to shift this conversation to the 
spin-off thread that I started last week based on Ben Novak's post and the ones 
to which he was responding, which I have reproduced below.  As we have 
previously discussed under the heading of Peirce's Cosmology, he explicitly 
referred to multiple "Platonic worlds" as one of the stages preceding the 
emergence of this actual universe of existence.  I have suggested that the 
former correspond to the coalescing chalk marks on the blackboard, which then 
serve as a whiteboard for the "discontinuous mark" that represents the latter.
  I’m slowly working through the posts I missed. Allow me to repost the 
relevant quote. This is 6.202-209. I think you quoted the paragraph referring 
to platonism. (See the other quotes at the bottom of this post too that differ 
from this version) I’ll try to relate this to the other comments later this 
evening. However having the original sources undoubtedly helps the discussion.

Permit me further to say that I object to having my metaphysical system as 
a whole called Tychism. For although tychism does enter into it, it only enters 
as subsidiary to that which is really, as I regard it, the characteristic of my 
doctrine, namely, that I chiefly insist upon continuity, or Thirdness, and, in 
order to secure to thirdness its really commanding function, I find it 
indispensable fully [to] recognize that it is a third, and that Firstness, or 
chance, and Secondness, or Brute reaction, are other elements, without the 
independence of which Thirdness would not have anything upon which to operate. 
Accordingly, I like to call my theory Synechism, because it rests on the study 
of continuity. I would not object to Tritism. And if anybody can prove that it 
is trite, that would delight me [in] the chiefest degree. 

All that I have been saying about the beginnings of creation seems wildly 
confused enough. Now let me give you such slight indication, as brevity 
permits, of the clue to which I trust to guide us through the maze.

Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the original vague 
potentiality, or at any rate of some early stage of its determination. This is 
something more than a figure of speech; for after all continuity is generality. 
This blackboard is a continuum of two dimensions, while that which it stands 
for is a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions. This blackboard 
is a continuum of possible points; while that is a continuum of possible 
dimensions of quality, or is a continuum of possible dimensions of a continuum 
of possible dimensions of quality, or something of that sort. There are no 
points on this blackboar

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

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, list,

So my hypothesis should not become a dogma. Could it at least serve for counter-hypothesis, preventing the hypothesis of a nothing from becoming a dogma? Though we are not in a courtroom, where the best method, if you are sued, is to sue back somehow. Oops, I might have gone on a path of not-good discussion style here, sorry. I guess this happens when people talk about fundamental things... Dangerous!

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Oktober 2016 um 18:21 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Helmut, List:
 

My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block the way of inquiry by ruling this out on a priori grounds, as you seem to be suggesting.  However, he also would say that we should not be dogmatic about whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be dogmatic about anything.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

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





 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





List,

I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of species, because  you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so??

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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a
matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block
the way of inquiry by ruling this out on *a priori* grounds, as you seem to
be suggesting.  However, he also would say that we should not be
*dogmatic *about
whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be
dogmatic about *anything*.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> List,
> I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing",
> because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning,
> creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that
> reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no
> symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of
> species, because  you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic
> documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary,
> not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical.
> So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified
> (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so??
> 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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .