Jon S, Edwina, Jeff D, List, Jon wrote: 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.
I agree, Jon, and have myself over the years argued that ""Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" is a valid concept (along with "self-organization") only *after *the creation of a cosmos, or, as you put it, after there is Being. I too find the notion of "self-generation" and "self-creation" completely implausible and inexplicable. But didn't we just recently have this discussion (remember Platonism vs Aristotelianism?) in contemplating, for prime example, the blackboard analogy (to which Jon added the interesting 'dimension' of a whiteboard)? For those who are unwilling to accept *Ens Necessarium* as anything but "Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" (which appears to be Edwina's position, although I'm not as certain as to where Jeff stands on this), then there is no God, no need for God, and exactly *nothing '*preceeds' the odd self-creation of the Universe, presumably at the moment of the most singular and peculiar of singularities, the putative Big Bang. So, I don't expect there will be anything approaching a rapprochement in these fundamentally opposed positions any time soon. Meanwhile, and while I think , Jeff, that you may be tending to over-emphasize the importance of developments in the existential graphs in consideration of the Categories/Universes problematic in the N.A. (I don't recall a single mention of EGs in that piece), your most recent post does offer some intriguing hints as to how we might begin to rethink aspects of the relation between the Categories and the Universes, or at least that is my first impression. But how, say, the Gamma graphs might figure in all this, I have no idea whatsover. Jeff concluded: So, in "The Neglected Argument", Peirce may very well be examining--on an observational basis--the different ways that we might think about the phenomenological account of the universes and categories in common experience for the sake of refining his explanations of how the logical conceptions of the universes of discourse and categories should be applied to those abductive inferences that give rise to our most global hypotheses. For me at least there have always been uncanny, unresolved tensions between the phenomenological, the logical, and the metaphysical in The Neglected Argument. The attempt to unravel them seems to me of the greatest potential value. 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 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > wrote: > 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 .
