Edwina, List: "God" and "nature" are *not *interchangeable in that passage ...
CSP: Shall we not conclude then that the conduct of men is the sole purpose and sense of thinking, and that if it be asked *why *should the human stock be continued, the only answer is that that is among the inscrutable purposes of God or the virtual purposes of nature which for the present remain secrets to us? So it would seem. But this conclusion is too vastly far-reaching to be admitted without further examination. Man seems to himself to have some glimmer of co-understanding with God, or with Nature. The fact that he has been able in some degree to predict how Nature will act, to formulate general "laws" to which future events conform, seems to furnish inductive proof that man really penetrates in some measure the ideas that govern creation. Now man cannot believe that creation has not some ideal purpose. (CP 8.211-212; c. 1905) ... and they are certainly not interchangeable when it comes to immanence. CSP: 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. (R 843:26) As previously discussed, based on Peirce's own definition of "immanent," this statement entails that Nature is neither *identical *to God nor a *part *of God. ET: I recall Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] and the description is most clearly an action of self-organization. No, it is not; and even if it were, Peirce later described that account as "faulty," as I discuss in my online paper <https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187>. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:22 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS > > I keep referring to the notion of 'self-organization' - and my > understanding of God or Nature [and I note that Peirce uses the terms > interchangeably - see 8.210, 211] is that the Universe self-organizes these > necessary modal categories. > > God/Nature is not 'immanent' in or caused by any of the three categories > --[matter 2ns, Mind 3ns, Ideas 1ns] but is a principle of self-organization > within the Universe of semiosis that requires all three categories. > > That is, I see the semiosic function as self-organizing - I recall > Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] and the > description is most clearly an action of self-organization. > > 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 .
