Edwina, List: ET: What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the Universe.
Peirce wrote "A Guess at the Riddle" in 1887-1888 and "A Neglected Argument" in 1908. The latter, including its various drafts, states explicitly that in Peirce's belief, God is Really creator of all three Universes of Experience and everything in them, without exception. This means that either (a) he changed his mind at some point during the intervening twenty years, or (b) he saw no incompatibility between the two positions. His cosmological remarks in CP 6.490, written only a little later in 1908 than the article itself, suggest strongly that (b) is the case. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R - you wrote: > > "I am not an atheist because, for one thing, I refuse to 'reduce' the > origins of this cosmos to an improbably singularity (a Big Bang--and, as > you probably know, there is not one version of this theory, but several, > and competing theories as well, although the current scientific dogma won't > allow for that). > > Nor do I see self-organization (a sound enough principle) and > self-creation (whatever that may mean) as the only principles of semiosis, > life and evolution." > > I certainly won't critique or comment on your rejection of atheism as > that's hardly my right, but I'd like to comment on the 'singularity of > origin of our universe' [Big Bang] and self-organization. > > With regard to the singular explosive origin, there certainly are numerous > theories, including for or against the Big Bang. Since I am rejecting a > metaphysical origin [God] as the origin of the universe, I stick with the > Big Bang for now. I refer to Peirce's 'A Guess at the Riddle'... > > "The original chaos, therefore, where there was no regularity, was in > effect a state of mere indeterminacy in which nothing existed or really > happened. > Our conceptions of the first stages of development, before time yet > existed, must be as vague and figurative as the expressions of the first > chapter of Genesis. Out of the womb of indeterminacy we must say that there > would have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call > a flash. Then by the principle of habit there would have been a second > flash. Though time would not yet have been, this second flash was in some > sense after the first, because resulting from it. Then there would have > come other successions ever more and more closely connected, the habits and > the tendency to take them ever strengthening themselves, until the events > would have been bound together into something like a continuous flow.....' > 1.412 > > What i read from the above is the self-organized emergence of the > Universe. There is no metaphysical Agent [God- which requires an a priori > agency, something which the Scholastics dealt with by not dealing with it > except within belief] - but - the basic principles of organization of the > three categories ARE there. And that's all three - pure spontaneity, > discrete instantiations, and regularity or habit-taking. These are all > aspects of Mind - and matter, as Peirce constantly wrote, is 'effete Mind'. > So, Mind seems to be primal...and even, self-organized. > > As Peirce outlined in his examples of crystals as instantiations of Mind, > or the decapitated frog which, lacking a brain, 'almost reasons. The habit > that is in his cerebellum serves as a major premiss. The excitation of a > drop of acid is his minor premiss. And his conclusion is the act of wiping > it away. All that is of any value in the operation of ratiocination is > there, except only one thing. What he lacks is the power of prepatory > meditation" 6.286. > > Just so- the above triad is a semiosic action - and equally applicable to > a crystal, which also lacks the power of prepatory meditation but does have > the entire semiosic act/syllogism within it. > > 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 .
