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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Jerry, List: Answer which question? The one that you posed initially? CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing; JLRC: In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically? philosophically?

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry Rhee
Dear list: Oh, I now remember who asked to be informed when he was acting a nominalist. For nominalists do this: “The Nominalists flatly denied the existence of anything but the concrete. For them, a universal name was in itself a mere “flatus voices”, according to Ockam’s famous

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Jon: >From my perspective, the question posed to you was intelligible to an >undergraduate. You describe yourself as "Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman”. If you do not want to answer this question about your beliefs, simply say you do not want to answer. Cheers

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Jerry, List: I am still not following you. Are you suggesting that meanings are always singular, never general? What makes dictionaries possible if everyone's "literal meanings" of the same terms are (or could be) completely different, just because we are different individual people? For that

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Clark, List: In various fragmentary drafts of "A Neglected Argument" that appear in R 841 and R 843, Peirce states each of the following. "'God,' in what sense?" ask ye? When so 'capitalized' (as we Americans say) it is, throughout this paper, the definable proper noun, i.e. *Ens necessarium*,

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? In more than 20 years of posting to List serves, this is among the most surprising

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

2017-01-23 Thread Gary Richmond
views are 'non-Peircean'. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Monda

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

2017-01-23 Thread Clark Goble
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ... > Pragmatically, all real

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry Rhee
> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce List <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > Are you suggesting, then, t

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

2017-01-23 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: Are you suggesting, then, that my "analysis" of the quotes that I cited from "New Elements" is "literal-bound" in that sense?

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
st <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean by "a > 'literal-bound' analysis of

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Jerry, List: Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ... - Pragmatically, all real reactions have a tendency toward regularity (i.e., habit-taking). - Philosophically, 1ns and 2ns are both

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

2017-01-23 Thread Edwina Taborsky
- Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce List Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > I am not sure what you mean by "the scope of [my] literality," or the precise > distinction that you are drawing between "pragmatically" vs. > "philosophically" vs. "theologically."

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Edwina, List: Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean by "a 'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce"? What exactly is "that evolving and complex mediating 'law'" that you seem to believe is essential to proper interpretation? As far as I can tell, Jerry did not point out any

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Jerry, List: I am not sure what you mean by "the scope of [my] literality," or the precise distinction that you are drawing between "pragmatically" vs. "philosophically" vs. "theologically." Would you mind clarifying? In any case, since it occurs only a few paragraphs later within the same

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

2017-01-23 Thread Edwina Taborsky
] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jon: On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing; In view of the scope of your literality

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

2017-01-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Jon: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely > nothing; In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically?

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

2016-11-25 Thread John F Sowa
Kirsti, We are in violent agreement. I looked at the slides you provided. With as good as all of them, was mark 'wrong', wrong, and again wrong. I have been doing R & D in AI for years, and the point I'm trying to make is that current AI research is *on the wrong track* . I presented an

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

2016-11-12 Thread John F Sowa
On 11/12/2016 12:55 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: You wrote: "Different languages have different options for the grammatical forms that express such relations. The number of options could lead to a combinatorial explosion, but the practical number is limited by human memory." I take your

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

2016-11-10 Thread John F Sowa
Edwina, Jon A, Jeff, Jerry, Jon AS, Kirsti, This topic has so many ramifications that it's impossible to say anything complete and definitive. The observation I considered important was Bateson's remark about stories as a natural way for minds or quasi-minds to think, talk, and reason about

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

2016-11-10 Thread kirstima
John, list, Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many just as possible stories. Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot

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

2016-11-09 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
John, List: My initial thought when I read your post was that your identification of three different "kinds of time" might align nicely with the points of view of the three Categories that Nicholas Guardiano adopted to analyze Peirce's cosmogony in the paper that I linked yesterday in the thread

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

2016-11-09 Thread Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, Kirsti, list, ET > I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt fro

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

2016-11-09 Thread Jerry Rhee
Dear list: From Aristotle, *Physics*: “But we apprehend time only when we have marked motion, marking it by ‘before’ and ‘after’; and it is only when we have perceived ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion that we say that time has elapsed. Now we mark them by judging that A and B are different,

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

2016-11-09 Thread Edwina Taborsky
George Herbert Spencer? What was I thinking? I meant George Spencer Brown. 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

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

2016-11-09 Thread Edwina Taborsky
John FS; thanks for your comments. See mine below. 1] ET I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. JFS: I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from p. 2 of a book on

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

2016-11-09 Thread John F Sowa
Edwina, Kirsti, list, ET I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from p. 2 of a book on biosemiotics (see below). Following is the critical

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

2016-11-05 Thread kirstima
John, list, Everyone seems to take the Big Bang hypothesis as granted. Still, it is just a hypothesis with meagre, if any evidence. And John, a most interesting question you posed: Does anyone know if he had written anything about embedding our universe in a hypothetical space of higher

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

2016-11-05 Thread Jerry Rhee
ents, after yours, are essentially irrelevant. > > OK - I declare that I won't engage further with you. > > Edwina > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> >

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

2016-11-05 Thread Edwina Taborsky
: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Mike, List: I can definitely understand how some would find these discussions "tiresome," but almost simultaneously with your negative response, I received a private reply to the very same message from a "

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

2016-11-05 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Mike, List: I can definitely understand how some would find these discussions "tiresome," but almost simultaneously with your negative response, I received a private reply to the very same message from a "lurker" stating, "This is great, and offlist - just wanted you to know that I enjoyed this

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

2016-11-04 Thread Mike Bergman
Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysic

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

2016-11-04 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
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> >

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

2016-11-04 Thread Jerry Rhee
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.

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
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

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

2016-11-04 Thread 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Gary Richmond
; 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) > >

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
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

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

2016-11-04 Thread 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Jeffrey Brian Downard
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

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

2016-11-04 Thread John F Sowa
On 11/4/2016 12:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: JFS: But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some time thereafter, there were no minds or quasi-minds that could perceive and interpret that existence. But there was a physical kind of monadic and dyadic pre-semiosis. ET: I don't know that

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

2016-11-04 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I had hoped my suggestion a while back of a Platonic cosmos pre-the Big Bang > (note: of course I completely agree with Clark that one shouldn't really > bring such very much later notions into the picture, which

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

2016-11-04 Thread 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Gary Richmond
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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Helmut Raulien
hat is as far as a scholarly list can go, I think.   Edwina             - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
4, 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Gary Richmond
ague potentiality, or at any rate of >>> some stage of its determination' 6.203. My reading is that this >>> blackboard is POST Big Bang. The blackboard is NOT the 'zero of bare >>> possibility'. Instead, it is POST Big Bang - and suddenly, a singular point >&

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
tentiality. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jon S, Edwina, List, Jon wrote: a.. The Big Bang corresponds to ou

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
John, List: Excellent comments. See mine below: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 1) >> my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind

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

2016-11-04 Thread Gary Richmond
>> The white chalk line appears within the act of Firstness, but is, in >> itself, operating ALSO within the mode of Secondness - because it is >> discrete and distinct. >> >> And then, habits or Thirdness, that generalizing tendency, develops. NOTE >> - Thirdness d

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Mike, list - I totally, fully agree. Edwina - Original Message - From: Mike Bergman To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote

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

2016-11-04 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
rdness did not pre-exist on its own; it develops as the discrete units > appear within Firstness and Secondness. That is, Thirdness is embedded > within the existentialities of matter operating within Firstness and > Secondness. It 'feeds and works' within these individual 'bits'...and > deve

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

2016-11-04 Thread Mike Bergman
On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge

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

2016-11-04 Thread John F Sowa
On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind universe. Yes. But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some

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

2016-11-04 Thread Edwina Taborsky
aphor. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jon, Edwina, Clark, List, Perhaps this back and forth--especially the tone and tende

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

2016-11-03 Thread Gary Richmond
original chaos' - no 'existences' and no 'feelings'. Nothing. >> >> Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Tab

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
you can disagree with me. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:2

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
ourse, and as usual, you can disagree with me. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: Once aga

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
ince I'm an atheist, > then, I'm not going to offer a self-organized belief in god as having been > First Cause. I simply don't know. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > I agree that Pierce claims that to do science you must have faith in the > possibility of finding truth and that knowing is connected to thirdness. I > wonder if it has anything to do with agapism? I think in the places he

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Is it helpful at all to refer to "actualization," rather than "cause"? > Edwina's position, as I understand it, is that our existing universe is not > only self-organizing but also self-generating or

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Clark, List: Your points, as usual, are well-taken. Is it helpful

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by the term > of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a matter of habit. > Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jerry Rhee
> spontaneous - and thus, has no habits. BUT, it is not 'nothing', for >> otherwise matter would never evolve its new habits. Matter only evolves >> these new habits when Firstness introduces a novel form [which is not >> 'nothing' but a novel form] ..and this novel form can then

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
this novel form can then persist within > its taking on of habits/Thirdness. > > Edwina > > - Original Message ----- > *From:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:28 PM >

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree with

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
change my mind. I can evolve a theory; I can reject a perspective. And >> this doesn't involve 'harmonization'. >> >> 4) The difference between 'rejection' and 'no comment' is obvious. The >> former is an action of deliberate rejection of content, it is a JUDGMENT. >>

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jerry Rhee
Dear list: The pragmatic maxim: If good because useful, then not useful because we do not even look to it. Therefore, not useful. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > >

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational > ur-continuity. I’m not sure that’s right. There’s certainly a type of continuity in quantum field theory but it’s unlike Peirce’s ur-continutiy because

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: 1) What? I never said anything about "wh

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree > with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process > theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected

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

2016-11-03 Thread Søren Brier
Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] Sent: 2. november 2016 22:43 To: John F Sowa Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmol

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Clark, List: All good points, thanks. Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Edwina, List: ET: I would expect Jon S to disagree. While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected determinism--or necessitarianism, as he

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical > ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jerry Rhee
the triadic semiosic network > can't be overlooked. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics an

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
, November 03, 2016 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of 'ur-continuit

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Clark, List: CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or extending arguments beyond where Peirce took them). I agree, and I have tried to

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
analyses of the emergence and evolution of matter/mind. > > And as I said - in my statement that this type of argument goes nowhere > and has little to do with Peirce - that's exactly what is happening now. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jona

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of > 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this > 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang >

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
r 03, 2016 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 2, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" following the creation of thi

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

2016-11-03 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 2, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" following the > creation of this Universe (that is, after the Big Bang, so to loosely speak) > is *not* the same as the 3ns which is the

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
and has little to do with Peirce - that's exactly what is happening now. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
;tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:33 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: I, for o

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
'it is incontrovertible' ..etc...are indeed powerful > statements but these phrases are not arguments. > > So- I don't see the point of such counterclaims. They have less to do with > Peirce than with ourselves. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *Fr

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
- Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is

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

2016-11-03 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Soren, Jon, List. > > Soren wro

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

2016-11-03 Thread Edwina Taborsky
- From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, Jon, List. Soren wrote: ​ But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the tendency

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

2016-11-02 Thread Gary Richmond
erson and the trandscendentalist’s view too. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 2. november 2016 22:43 > *To:* John F Sowa > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PE

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

2016-11-02 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
cism- > christian-and-buddhist.pdf and he was hired by Paul Carus the editor of > the Monist. Of cause we here have Emerson and the trandscendentalist’s view > too. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalans

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

2016-11-02 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Clark: To clarify, I did not mean to imply that I was stating *Peirce's* analysis of John 1:1; again, as far as I know, he never quoted or directly commented on it. That was just my own first pass at parsing it in terms of the three Categories. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

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

2016-11-02 Thread Jerry Rhee
Clark, list: If you require aid in interpreting John 1:1, I would contrast a lecture by Benedict XVI with Peirce’s “What is Christian Faith?”. “At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is

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

2016-11-02 Thread Søren Brier
have Emerson and the trandscendentalist’s view too. Best Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 2. november 2016 22:43 To: John F Sowa Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) John, List

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

2016-11-02 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > At first glance, it seems to me that mapping John 1:1 to Peirce's Categories > gives us something like, "In the beginning was the Word [Thirdness], and the > Word was with God [Secondness], and the Word was

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

2016-11-02 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
Clark, List: At first glance, it seems to me that mapping John 1:1 to Peirce's Categories gives us something like, "In the beginning was the Word [Thirdness], and the Word was with God [Secondness], and the Word was God [Firstness]." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional

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

2016-11-02 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
John, List: The question still arises of what to make of the statement in John's Gospel that "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." Neither nature nor its laws can be substituted for Logos in this case. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

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

2016-11-02 Thread Clark Goble
> On Nov 2, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Potter writes: > > I would like to add here on my account that when it coms to understanding the > conditions of possibility of special disclosure or revelation in holy persons > or historical events, disclosure

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

2016-11-02 Thread John F Sowa
On 11/2/2016 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: His favorite Gospel was that of John, but did he ever quote its first chapter? "In the beginning was the Word [logos] ... Since his father taught him Greek at a very early age, I'm sure that New Testament Greek was one of the first texts he

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

2016-11-02 Thread Gary Richmond
Jon S, List, Jon quoted me and remarked: *Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen as both the very incarnation of God and truly man) is one I'm wholly unprepared to consider at this time.* *I would love to consider this question, but I have no idea whether or where

  1   2   >