Edwina, list It is clear that the concept of god in panentheism is not a personal god, but a transcendent creative principle at the center of reality “before” and “outside” time that from Toho va Bohu sets of the self-organizing capability of the emerging universe ( which corresponds to the immanence aspect of god (working as agapism in Peirce’s conceptualization). It is the tendency to take habits. So – as I understand it – the concept of god is used to explain these two creative and dynamical aspects of reality. Hartshorne and Reese in 1853 published the work Philosophers Speak of God: Readings in theology and analysis of theistic ideas” where they discusses these views historically and conceptually.
Søren From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 23. oktober 2016 21:23 To: Søren Brier; Gary Richmond; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories Thanks Soren, but -the problem with terms such as pantheism and panentheism - is that they don't define the term 'god'. By the way, when/if I refer to Peirce as a 'pantheist', I am possibly - and probably- using the term incorrectly. I really mean 'pansemiotician'; i.e., that semiosis functions within all realms of matter/mind. This then means that one must ask 'what is semiosis' - and I consider that it is the morphological development of matter-mind, within the three categories, within the triadic format. ..And that this takes place in all realms: the physico-chemical, biological and socio-conceptual. The 'origin' and 'ultimate/final cause' of this semiosis - I don't locate it OUTSIDE of semiosis. And I see the justification for this in Peirce's 1.412 outline. Others, such as Jon and Gary R, focus more on the NA and therefore locate this ultimate/final cause in a supreme force, [which must be accepted without question] termed 'God'. I see this outline as an inexplicable contradiction to 1.412 - despite Jon's claim that he has 'solved' the contradiction. So- I apologize; I think I've been using the term 'pantheist' incorrectly - as my focus on 1.412, doesn't attribute the formation and generation of the universe to any non-immanent agent [god]. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Søren Brier<mailto:sb....@cbs.dk> To: 'Edwina Taborsky'<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> ; Gary Richmond<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 1:28 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories Edwina, Jon , list I can only point to that Charles Hartshorne viewed Peirce’s position as panentheism and that this view combines the two positions. Søren From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 22. oktober 2016 19:16 To: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories 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<mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com> To: Peirce-L<mailto: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" 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] 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<mailto: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<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
