Jon, Edwina, List, Two things have been clarified for me from this discussion. First, that as Jon noted, Peirce would unquestionably* not* "sanction calling a proposition "logical" that renders the origin of the entire universe *inexplicable*."
The self-generation or self-creation of the Universe is such an illogical proposition. What Peirce offers in his early cosmological musings, as difficult as they certainly are to analyze and interpret, increasingly make better sense--at least for me--of the origins of the Universe than the competing theory, the Big Bang, for which Great Singularity there has never been a persuasive, or pretty much any, reason given. So, as I'm now seeing it, this great scientist, philosopher, and logician (semiotician), i.e., Peirce, arrives at his early cosmology (which necessitates God) because for him this is the only reasonable solution to the ancient question of why there is anything rather than nothing and why it takes the (for Peirce) trichotomic form which it does. That he employs the fruits of his intellectual labors over a lifetime, including his notion of Three Universes, in an attempt at a reasonable answer to this question is much less the action of a believer (an certainly not a theologian, for he famously rather despised theology), than as a scientist. Second, from his own words it is clear that Peirce would never "substitute "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as *Ens necessarium*." Jon has argued this repeatedly and so well that I have nothing to add to his argumentation. But this brings me back to the first point, namely, that for Peirce a principal, perhaps *the* principal purpose of science and reason is exactly to make the world explicable. As Terry Eagleton writes in *Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate* in words which could be Peirce's: We may. . . inquire what we are to make of the fact that even before we have begun to reason properly, that the world is in principle reasonable in the first place (129). In additional, Eagleton comments, following Aquinas' dictum that "all virtues have their source in love": Love is the ultimate form of soberly disenchanted realism, which is why it is the twin of truth (122), But that would get us into a discussion of Peirce's non-traditional view of Christianity, which is, even if deeply related, a distinctly different topic than the Reality of God in the N.A. Best, Gary R : Love is the ultimate form of soberly [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 <718%20482-5690>* On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > ET: That is, whether the universe is self-generated/created as well as > self-organized, or, requires an non-immanent agential creator. Both are > logical ... > > > I hardly think that Peirce would sanction calling a proposition "logical" > that renders the origin of the entire universe *inexplicable*. > Self-generation/creation does not even qualify as an admissible hypothesis > according to his criteria, since it does not *explain *anything. Julie > Andrews sang it well--"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Gary R, list: >> >> Exactly. You wrote: >> "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." >> >> That was also my point. The two paradigms are not, either one of them, >> empirically, provable. That is, whether the universe is >> self-generated/created as well as self-organized, or, requires an >> non-immanent agential creator. Both are logical, but, both rely totally on >> belief. So, there can't be any 'rapprochement'. You either believe in one >> or the other. And therefore, there's not much use arguing about them! >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:03 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories >> >> 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 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> 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 .
