*Deus, sive Natura*: “That eternal and infinite being we call *God*, or *Nature*, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface), Spinoza
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > 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 <sb....@cbs.dk> > > *To:* 'Edwina Taborsky' <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Gary Richmond > <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L <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 <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 <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 > . > > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
