Jon, list: The thing is, Peirce didn't base his analysis on the words of a
song. And self-generation does not 'render the origin of the entire universe
inexplicable'. He outlines and explains its self-generation in 1.412. He bases
his analysis on an assumption that the three categories, which are modes [not
agents] of organization of matter/mind.. are fundamental - and as such, can
initiate and organize the universe.
I personally find the notion of a non-immanent agential creator - to be
inexplicable and therefore the acceptance of such rests solely on a belief in
such an agent.
As I've said - both explanations are based on belief; I really don't think
either is open to empirical evidence. I happen to find the 1.412 explanation to
be, yes, logical - and I therefore accept it.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
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
To: Peirce-L
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" isnot 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
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 .
