*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 .




Reply via email to