Edwina, List: 1) This is getting ridiculous. I never said or implied that the only alternative to Peirce writing what he meant and meaning what he wrote is that he was *lying*. My point pertains to us as readers, rather than him as a writer--quite simply, in the absence of good reasons to do otherwise, we should take his written words at face value. Your inability to reconcile the 1908 writings with the earlier cosmological writings is not, by itself, a good reason to do otherwise. My "quite literal and theist reading" is the plain sense of the text. Your "metaphorical" reading requires the dubious assumption that Peirce was up to something other than what he actually said. As I have pointed out before, the title of the article is "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," so the higher burden of proof is squarely on anyone who wants to claim that Peirce was *not really *arguing for the Reality of God.
2) Again, to defend a metaphorical interpretation, you would need to identify evidence *in the later texts* that Peirce intended them to be understood that way, rather than literally; and then you would need to explain what that actually means. What are the metaphors, and what do they represent? I think that it makes a lot more sense to take the definitions literally, and then see whether and how they can be reconciled with the earlier writings. I have made my case for why and how I think they can, but if they cannot, then the most reasonable conclusion is that Peirce changed his mind in the interim. Why do you resist that explanation so strenuously? 3) Peirce did not divide the ten semeiotic trichotomies by Categories in the 23 December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby; instead, he divided them by Universes (Possibles, Existents, Necessitants). If the Universes do not correspond to the Categories, then we should *never *discuss the later 28-sign and 66-sign classifications in terms of Categories; we should *only *discuss them in terms of Universes, since that was Peirce's own terminology. 4) More absurdity. The principle of charity cannot justify *any *interpretation, it merely seeks to reconcile different writings by the same author *wherever possible*. I already indicated my concurrence with the caveats that Clark has raised. 5) Back to dismissive rhetoric and name-calling, I see. Your example betrays not only a misunderstanding of the pragmaticist maxim, but also confusion of a triadic relation (X murders Y) with a dyadic one (Y dies). We are not talking here about statistical judgments by populations, but singular judgments by individuals. 6) I merely expressed a *suspicion *that you are in the minority, and did not argue or even suggest that this by itself invalidates your opinion. If not "the emergence and evolution of matter/mind," what do *you *think that Peirce was writing about in CP 6.490? Regards, Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, List > > 1) An IF-THEN argument, as you have set it up, removes the conditional and > interpretive factor inherent in an *IF*-THEN argument. That's because you > have inserted a moral condition, that suggests that IF one doesn't accept > the THEN assertions in the list you provided, THEN, it suggests that > Peirce's comments were lies. But the NA paper still has to be interpreted, > - something you reject - and I do not interpret the term 'God' as you do - > with your quite literal and theist reading. > > 2) I repeat: the definitions, if taken literally, in the 1908 NA paper do > not correlate with Peirce's earlier writings on the emergence of Mind and > Matter; the role of chance; the role of habit-formation. That is why I > introduce the suggestion of metaphor - > > 3) Your 'substitution' of 'universes' for 'categories' made no sense, as I > originally tried to explain to you - and failed, since you rarely accept > any of my comments as having any validity. And I don't agree with your new > view - that the universes are 'phenomenological and/or metaphysical > manifestations of the Categories'. The Categories stand quite well on > their own in a phenomenological and metaphysical manner. > > 4) No- we don't agree on the 'principle of charity' since it seems, to me > at least, empty because it can serve, incorrectly, to justify any > interpretation. > > 5) I totally and absolutely reject your view that 'not judging is itself a > judgment'. That's pure semantic sophistry. > > You are essentially saying that, for example, there is no difference > between: 'murdering a man, and that same man dying naturally in his bed'. > After all, to you, there is no *practical* difference [since that man is > dead in both instances] and therefore, for you, there is no *conceptual* > difference. I don't agree. > > In addition, you reject the statistical reality of neutrality - which > would foul up a LOT of scientific evaluations! In X-case, a population > makes a decision about Y. ...based on a scale of 1 to 5. The value of '3' > is NEUTRAL *and is a valid statistic, suggestion NO JUDGMENT*. Your > one-dimenstional binarism rejects neutrality. For you - everything MUST be > a judgment; you either accept or reject. I don't agree with this. > > 6) As for your conclusion that I'm in the minority - well, that's another > statistical flaw since of course, you don't know - and the 'well-chosen > average' is not always right. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:42 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > 1) What? I never said anything about "what [I interpret as his meaning]"; > those are *your *words, which you inserted into my *conditional *comment--IF > Peirce wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote, THEN it is > incontrovertible that in 1908 he believed that God as *Ens necessarium *was > the Creator of all three Universes of Experience and all of their contents, > without exception. His words to this effect are quite plain and > unambiguous in all four of the quotes that I provided. By claiming that > they are somehow "metaphorical," you have effectively conceded that your > view is that Peirce DID NOT write what he meant or mean what he wrote. > > 2) With all due respect, this is very poor argumentation on your part. > You cannot correlate the four 1908 statements with Peirce's earlier > cosmological writings, so they simply *must *be "metaphorical"; i.e., > pertaining to "the experience of life" (whatever that means) rather than > the origin and order of our existing universe, despite explicitly calling > God the Creator of everything in all three Universes. And you simply > assert this, without offering any justification from the texts whatsoever. > > To set the record straight, I never used the word "rejection" or > "rejected" with respect to the three Categories; I *speculated *that > Peirce had *substituted *"Universes" for "Categories" in his late > writings, asked the List community for help in evaluating this hypothesis, > and ultimately withdrew it when confronted with the fact that Peirce > continued to write at length about the Categories in the 1907 drafts of > "Pragmatism." My revised view--which just goes to show that some of us are > willing and able to change our minds based on the discussions here--is that > the Universes are phenomenological and/or metaphysical manifestations of > the Categories. That makes sense not only in "A Neglected Argument," but > also in the 23 December 1908 draft letter to Lady Welby, where Peirce > similarly defined three Universes and then assigned his ten semeiotic > trichotomies to them as Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. You cannot > have it both ways--if the Universes have nothing to do with the Categories, > then neither do these divisions of signs and their relations. > > 3) Okay, we disagree on the principle that later writings should generally > be given priority over earlier writings; I suspected that (and said so) a > long time ago. Do we at least agree on the principle of charity now? > > 4) The decision not to judge is itself a judgment. You choose not to take > "A Neglected Argument" into account, which implies that you do not consider > it to be relevant--i.e., you *reject *it when seeking to identify and > understand Peirce's cosmological views. There is no *practical *difference > between "rejection" and "no comment," so there is no *conceptual * > difference. > > 5) Then I suspect that you are in a very small minority of Peirce > scholars. For one thing, what else could plausibly be the subject matter > of CP 6.490? > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Jon - again, you are lifting words/phrases and inserting your own >> meanings. >> >> 1) To now claim that your statement that either a writer 'means what he >> says or doesn't' is a *'common-sense assumption*.... is not the same as >> 'either he meant what [I interpret as his meaning] or he did not' - is not >> logical evidence - but almost a threat'. You are leaving out *''what I >> interpret as his meaning'*. >> >> 2) Again, the definitions given in the NA do not, in my view, correlate >> with the emergence-evolution outlines of the universe given elsewhere in >> Peirce's works [not only 1.412, but the outlines of tychasm and agapasm and >> synechism]. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are metaphors for *the >> experience of life*. Not for the analysis of the triadic semiosic >> evolution of life. I therefore do not comment on them. >> >> I am aware that you tried, very hard, to suggest that the 'three >> universes of experience' were advanced analyses by Peirce [because written >> at a later date] and thus included the rejection of the Three Categories. >> My suggestion that the Three Universes of Experience had nothing to do >> with the Three Categories, which were not rejected by Peirce [as you were >> trying to claim] was denied by you - but- eventually, you were persuaded by >> others [not by me] to abandon this claim. >> >> Beyond my suggestion that the NA is about the 'experience of life' - I >> have no comment as, yet again, I see no correlation with Peirce's arguments >> about the emergence and evolution of matter/mind in the universe. You >> attempt to correlate them; I don't see this interpretation as valid. >> >> 3) i do NOT acknowledge that what I wrote yesterday 'more accurately >> reflects my considered views'. All it does it reflect what i wrote >> yesterday. To insert 'more accurately' suggests a mechanical process of >> Mind where the words are supposed to 'accurately match' the Mind's >> content!!!. I don't see Mind operating that way. As I said, I am quite >> able to fritter nonsense today - while my work of 20 years ago - might have >> been functional. There is NO EVIDENCE of a linear progression of anyone's >> Mind or work. >> >> I don't subscribe to your theory that the content of my mind is 'set'; I >> can change my mind. I can evolve a theory; I can reject a perspective. And >> this doesn't involve 'harmonization'. >> >> 4) The difference between 'rejection' and 'no comment' is obvious. The >> former is an action of deliberate rejection of content, it is a JUDGMENT. >> The latter is - no action and no judgment. >> >> 5) I don't consider that the NA has anything to do with Peirce's long >> analyses of the emergence and evolution of matter/mind. >> >> And as I said - in my statement that this type of argument goes nowhere >> and has little to do with Peirce - that's exactly what is happening now. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:18 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >> Cosmology) >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> 1) How does expressing a common-sense assumption about any author's >> writings constitute "almost a threat"? >> >> 2) How do you "metaphorically" interpret these rather straightforward >> statements by Peirce, all written in 1908 (emphases in original)? >> >> 1. The word 'God,' so 'capitalized' (as we Americans say), is the >> definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*; in my belief >> Really creator of all three Universes of Experience. >> 2. I do *not *mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence is >> "immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, >> of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them. >> 3. Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be meant, >> the Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to >> Him, >> omniscience, omnipotence, infinite benignity, a Being *not *"immanent >> in" the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of >> every >> content of them without exception ... >> 4. But I had better add that I do *not *mean by God a being merely >> "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content >> of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and >> the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. >> >> 3) Okay, but you also have not shown that "A Neglected Argument" is >> *irreconcilable >> *with Peirce's earlier cosmological writings. >> >> 4) Acknowledging that something you wrote yesterday more accurately >> presents your considered views does not *nullify *what you wrote twenty >> years ago--unless you *changed your mind* during the intervening two >> decades. As I have said before, that is one viable explanation that would >> be consistent with your view on this matter--Peirce *changed his mind* >> sometime between 1887-1888 and 1908. All I have tried to show is that such >> an explanation is not *necessary*; i.e., it is *possible *to harmonize >> *everything >> *that Peirce wrote about the origin and order of our existing >> universe--and therefore *preferable* to do so, rather than positing a >> *discontinuity* in the development of his thought (more below). >> >> 5) Previously you stated, "I admit that I can't explain the NA - and I >> don't even attempt to do so." You also stated, "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." I then >> asked what *practical *effects are different between "rejection" and "no >> comment," besides the words that we use for them; but I never got an >> answer. Now you are claiming that you interpret "A Neglected Argument" >> *metaphorically*, whatever that means (see above). >> >> Are you not familiar with "the principle of charity"? It is not a >> "sanctimonious claim" that I invented; it is a legitimate, >> well-established, and widely endorsed method of interpretation. Per >> Wikipedia, "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires >> interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any >> argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." As >> Donald Davidson put it, "We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of >> others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement." So we assume >> that "A Neglected Argument," for example, is *fully consistent* with >> *everything >> else* that Peirce wrote--unless and until the evidence *compels* us to >> conclude otherwise. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon, list - >>> >>> 1) Your insistence that an interpretation of Peirce is bonded to 'either >>> he meant what [I interpret as his meaning] or he did not' - is not logical >>> evidence - but almost a threat. >>> >>> 2) My response to his NA is not to ignore it but to acknowledge that I >>> cannot interpret it within his full body of work - which includes his >>> earlier writings. Note - I am not ignoring it; I cannot correlate it except >>> as* metaphoric*, with his earlier writings. >>> >>> 3) Your claim that you have indeed correlated the NA with his earlier >>> writings remains your claim - you haven't convinced me of your having done >>> so. >>> >>> 4) Your claim that IF I declare that my current writings 'more >>> accurately reflect' my 'considered' views [And what does 'considered views' >>> mean?] THEN, this nullifies my previous views is illogical. My current >>> views [I don't know what 'considered views' means] are based on and >>> grounded in my previous work. I don't subscribe to an axiom that 'a later >>> view is a more accurate view' for such a mechanical perspective has nothing >>> to do with how the mind works - which is not the same as the mechanical >>> design process. Indeed, my later views might well be weakened by a current >>> inaccurate 'fad' attachment on my part; there is no evidence that I am less >>> susceptible to such emotions as I age. >>> >>> 5) Nor do I declare, anywhere, that Peirce rejected his later writings. >>> Would you please provide me with *evidence* for where I declare or even >>> suggest that he did so? >>> >>> I have said that I, myself, am not able to correlate his NA with the >>> rest of his body of work - and again, your insistence that YOU have done >>> so, has not convinced me of such a result. Since I don't insert assumptions >>> of 'the principle of charity' which is a rather sanctimonious claim - then, >>> I am not going to claim that the NA IS or IS NOT consistent with Peirce's >>> other work. >>> >>> I am only talking about MYSELF - which is that I don't see that it, >>> read 'in itself' rather than metaphorocally, correlates with the rest of >>> his work. Your insistence that it does; that your interpretation is 'beyond >>> debate' ; that 'it is incontrovertible' ..etc...are indeed powerful >>> statements but these phrases are not arguments. >>> >>> So- I don't see the point of such counterclaims. They have less to do >>> with Peirce than with ourselves. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:15 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>> Cosmology) >>> >>> Edwina, List: >>> >>> If Peirce wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote, then it is >>> incontrovertible that in 1908 he believed that God as *Ens necessarium *was >>> the Creator of all three Universes of Experience and all of their contents, >>> without exception. By what valid method of interpretation can anyone >>> plausibly deny this? >>> >>> You have admitted that your response to "A Neglected Argument" is to *ignore >>> *it, because you cannot explain it; it does not and cannot align with >>> your favored interpretation of Peirce's earlier cosmological writings. I, >>> on the other hand, do not *reject* the latter, as you keep (wrongly) >>> alleging; on the contrary, as I have said before, I seek to *harmonize *them >>> with his later writings, under the principle of charity--we should assume >>> *consistency >>> *between two passages, unless there is no viable way to reconcile >>> them. At the same time, I do believe that later writings should generally >>> be given priority over earlier ones, in accordance with the presupposition >>> that they reflect additional contemplation and refinement of the ideas >>> discussed. Again, which more accurately presents your considered >>> views--something that you wrote twenty years ago, or something that you >>> wrote yesterday? >>> >>> I hope you realize that the sword you are now wielding cuts both ways. >>> The FACT that you, yourself, are a firm non-believer in such a >>> 'pre-existent Creator' seems to me, to encourage you to declare that >>> Peirce, without proof, rejected his later writings. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon, list - and that's my point. You insist that 'there is really no >>>> debating whether he (at least eventually) believed that there is a >>>> non-immanent Creator involved; he said so explicitly, in "A Neglected >>>> Argument" and its manuscript drafts. " >>>> >>>> But there IS a debate. You choose to ignore his other arguments against >>>> such a pre-existent Creator as 'irrelevant' because you declare, without >>>> proof, that since he wrote such views earlier in his life that he thus, >>>> according to you, 'evolved' out of them. The FACT that you, yourself, are a >>>> firm believer in such a 'pre-existent Creator' seems to me, to encourage >>>> you to declare that Peirce, without proof, rejected his earlier writings. >>>> You insert the same focus in other areas, such as the notion of a pre-world >>>> 'ur-Thirdness' - since you, yourself, firmly believe in a prior Force. >>>> >>>> And since you tend to immediately reject any attempts to suggest that >>>> your interpretations of Peirce's beliefs and yours are not identical - >>>> then, this thread moves away from discussion to circularity with you >>>> insisting that you have 'proved your case' and 'there is no debate'. But - >>>> I don't see such finality. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L >>>> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:33 AM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>>> Cosmology) >>>> >>>> Edwina, List: >>>> >>>> ET: I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang >>>> universe' of 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this >>>> 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang >>>> Thirdness. >>>> >>>> >>>> Gary R. and I have laid out our reasons for seeing all of that in >>>> Peirce. In particular, there is really no debating whether he (at least >>>> eventually) believed that there is a non-immanent Creator involved; he said >>>> so explicitly, in "A Neglected Argument" and its manuscript drafts. One >>>> can argue that he was *wrong *about that, but not that he *himself *was >>>> an atheist, even though atheists can certainly gain many valuable insights >>>> from him; ditto for pantheists and panentheists. >>>> >>>> ET: It seems to me that we are moving into a discussion based around >>>> our own firmly-held personal beliefs about god, the world, creation etc, >>>> and are using Peirce, searching for and 'interpreting' his writings, to >>>> support our own personal beliefs. >>>> >>>> >>>> There is *always *a danger--a likelihood, even--that our own personal >>>> biases will influence our "readings" of someone else's writings; but that >>>> extends to *all *aspects of Peirce's thought, not just these >>>> particular metaphysical matters. By discussing them in a forum like this, >>>> we are giving others the opportunity to help us recognize when we fall into >>>> such patterns and adjust our thinking accordingly. Some of us have even >>>> changed our minds as a result of these conversations. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang >>>>> universe' of 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in >>>>> this >>>>> 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang >>>>> Thirdness. >>>>> >>>>> But I am concerned about the focus of this thread. It seems to me that >>>>> we are moving into a discussion based around our own firmly-held personal >>>>> beliefs about god, the world, creation etc, and are using Peirce, >>>>> searching >>>>> for and 'interpreting' his writings, to support our own personal beliefs. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see the point of such a discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Edwina >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's >>>>> Cosmology) >>>>> >>>>> Soren, Jon, List. >>>>> >>>>> Soren wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or >>>>> the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt >>>>> argues so Well in *Natural propositions* and feeling is present in >>>>> all matter (Hylozoism) and all three categories arise as universes from >>>>> pure Zero. . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" >>>>> *following* the creation of this Universe (that is, after the Big >>>>> Bang, so to loosely speak) is *not* the same as the 3ns which is the >>>>> *ur*-continuity represented by the black board example in the last of >>>>> the 1898 lectures. It seems to me that much hinges on whether or not one >>>>> sees our Universe as presupposing this ur-continuity (nothing in >>>>> particular >>>>> but everything in general, with yet a tendency toward habit-taking >>>>> *because >>>>> *of this ur-continuity, otherwise termed the zero of pure potential, >>>>> which is, for Peirce, certainly not "nothing at all"). >>>>> >>>>> It has further been noted that Peirce suggests that the Creator is, or >>>>> in some way participates, in this ur-continuity. *Once* *this* >>>>> Universe is "in effect," then, yes, all that you and Stjernfelt argue may >>>>> follow (although, I remain, as was Peirce, I firmly believe, a theist and >>>>> not a panentheist, so I tend to reject that part of your argumentation, at >>>>> least in consideration of the early cosmos). >>>>> >>>>> 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>* >>>>> >>>>>
----------------------------- 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 .
