Jon, list - But Peirce himself wrote of 'self-generation' from 'nothing' in
1.412. There is no mention of an a priori or metaphysical causal agency;
indeed, the system is self-generating "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...."
The basic axioms are inherent in the system: the three categories. That is all
that is needed. No agential causality. "three elements are active in the world:
first, chance; second, law; and third, habit-taking" 1.409.
I think that both you and I are also thinking within our own 'basic axioms' -
and we cannot readily escape those. You are a theist and I am an atheist - and
therefore you accept an a priori agent [God] whereas I find it implausible.
These are our beliefs and I don't think they are subject to empirical evidence!!
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
Edwina, Jeff, List:
This highlights one of my strong initial misgivings about Jeff's posts from
last night. I do not see it as valid at all to substitute "the Mind-like
Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as Ens necessarium. As I have pointed out
before, Peirce made it very clear in the manuscript drafts for "A Neglected
Argument" that what he meant by "God" is not someone or something that is
"immanent in Nature." I have also previously noted the distinction between
"self-organization" (of that which already has Being), which is perfectly
plausible and even evident in the world today, and "self-creation" or
"self-generation" (something coming into Being on its own out of nothing),
which I find completely implausible.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Jeffrey- very nice outline. My view is that "the Mind-like Reasonableness
in Nature as Ens necessarium self-sufficient in its originative capacity,
"...for Peirce rejected the Cartesian separation of Mind and Matter. Therefore,
Mind, as a necessary component of Matter, self-organizes that same Matter and
its Laws - by means of the three Categories which enable it to do just that.
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 .
