Edwina, List: ET: No- you aren't accurate but I don't see that I should have to defend myself; if you have inaccurate views of my views - then, I am hardly going to fight you about your views of me!
My apologies, I did not intend to misrepresent you; but how is having "no comment" on "A Neglected Argument" any different (in the pragmaticist sense) from rejecting it? You just reiterated that you "don't find that it fits in with the emergence-evolution arguments found elsewhere in Peirce"; how is this at odds with my statement that you find it incompatible with his earlier cosmological/cosmogonic writings, which you favor? ET: BUT - you adamantly told us that Peirce effectively abandoned his use of the Categories, which you defined as 'early' and instead, moved on to consider the Three Universes. I believe that a fair review of the List archives would show that I was never "adamant" about this, but rather consistently characterized it as merely an "impression," or at most a "hypothesis"; and in any case, I immediately changed my mind and disavowed it when Gary R. reminded me that Peirce discussed the Categories at some length in at least one of his 1907 drafts on "Pragmatism." In other words, I have come to agree with you "that Peirce never abandoned the Categories"; however, I still see the discussion of "Universes" rather than "Categories" in both "A Neglected Argument" and the December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby as calling for an explanation. If they are not two subtly different expressions of the same thing, perhaps in the sense that the three Universes are the phaneroscopic and/or metaphysical manifestations of the three (logical?) Categories, then what exactly is the distinction between the two terms? Regards, Jon On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > No- you aren't accurate but I don't see that I should have to defend > myself; if you have inaccurate views of my views - then, I am hardly going > to fight you about your views of me! > > BUT - you adamantly told us that Peirce effectively abandoned his use of > the Categories, which you defined as 'early' and instead, moved on to > consider the Three Universes. That was my argument with you - that you > rejected his Categories as 'early Peirce' while the 'mature Peirce' > discusssed only the Three Universes. I maintained that Peirce never > abandoned the Categories and indeed, don't find them comparable in any way > with the Three Universes. > > As far as the emergence of the universe, I tend to support his 1.412 > outline, which is a physico-chemical-biological outline, along with his > outline of evolution and adaptation [tychasm, agapasm] - none of which make > any reference to a non-immanent a priori Creator/God - as outlined in the > NA. I didn't find your attempt to correlate 1.412 with the NA a convincing > argument. > > Therefore - I said, and repeat, that I have *no comment* on the NA, since > I don't find that it fits in with the emergence-evolution arguments found > elsewhere in Peirce. > > As for Peirce's Platonism -[ which is not the same as neo-Platonism], I > find Peirce a thorough Aristotelian - and the debate, for example, by > Aristotle vs Platonism [in many areas, including in physics, metaphysics, > politics] ...seems to find support in Peirce's views on, for example, > matter and mind; causality; ....so, I don't find arguments defining him as > 'Platonist' very convincing. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 1:47 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories > > Clark, List: > > ET: I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big > contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more > neoplatonic work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him > moving away from the earlier positions. > > > This actually sounds more like my position than Edwina's. I have argued > that Peirce's later cosmological/cosmogonic writings do not *contradict *his > earlier ones; rather, they *clarify *some details that he had previously > left vague. By contrast, Edwina seems to *reject *the later > writings--especially "A Neglected Argument," which she admits she cannot > explain and does not even attempt to explain--as incompatible with the > earlier ones, which she favors. She also seems to bristle at *any *suggestion > that Peirce was a (neo-)Platonist in *any *sense whatsoever. Of course, > these are my impressions of her positions, and I hope that they are > accurate; if not, I would welcome her correction/clarification. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >> >> The problem is, Gary, that you and Jon are both theists and both of you >> reject the 'Big Bang'. I am an atheist and support the 'Big Bang'. >> Therefore, both sides in this debate select sections from Peirce to which >> we feel compatible. Yet - as I keep saying, both views are empirically >> outside of any possibility of proof or TRUTH. You either believe in one OR >> the other [or some other theory]. >> >> I confess I don’t understand this disagreement, especially if it is >> coming in with our priors regarding theology. It seems to me the big bang >> is largely orthogonal to such questions. For one, most physics doesn’t see >> the big bang as the beginning of everything. The inflationary models at >> this point are quite old and widely accepted. String theory has its branes >> which float in higher dimensional space. Loop quantum gravity has bubble >> universes more akin to the original inflationary models. And some theorists >> reject them all and say all we have empirical evidence for is this universe. >> >> i.e. it would seem both options are pretty open to atheists and theists >> of various stripes >> >> You try to substantiate that Peirce followed the same view as yours by >> defining his 'earlier work' as something that he moved away from and >> rejected. I don't see any evidence of this. I admit that I can't explain >> the NA - and I don't even attempt to do so - but - I don't find any >> evidence of Peirce rejecting the 1.412 argument - and other arguments about >> the self-organization and evolution of the universe [tychasm, agapasm]. >> >> I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big >> contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more >> neoplatonic work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him >> moving away from the earlier positions. >> >> But I suspect part of this is how to interpret those earlier passages in >> 1.412. I’m largely convinced by Parker here. (Regarding Peirce anyway - I’m >> not sure I buy the ontology itself) >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
