t; - 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>
>
ome 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.
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
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
; 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)
>
>
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
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
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
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
y. There need be no consistency
>> between the two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a
>> mark with *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
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
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
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
ct: 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 univer
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
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
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)
ble
> 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:* H
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.
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
, 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 ide
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
