Edwina, List: We have been over this ground already--Peirce wrote CP 1.412 in 1887-1888, and spent the next two decades revising and refining his views about the origin of the universe. This is evident in various writings, including the 1891-1893 "metaphysical series" in *The Monist*, the 1898 Cambridge Conferences lectures on *Reasoning and the Logic of Things*, and (finally) the 1908 article "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." You have acknowledged previously that you *cannot explain* why these later descriptions, especially the last one, include "a non-immanent agential creator"; but it seems obvious that Peirce must have ultimately found any other explanation *unsatisfactory*.
Even if we take CP 1.412 and your interpretation thereof in isolation, there are still tough questions that cannot be avoided. Where did "the original chaos ... in effect a state of mere indeterminacy" come from? Where did the three categories come from? Where did matter/mind come from? In other words, where did Being come from? By 1908, Peirce had settled upon the unavoidable conclusion that the only Being whose origin *does not* require an explanation is *Ens necessarium*--i.e., *necessary *Being, which has no origin at all, and which he explicitly identified as God. 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 2:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
