On 8/1/2019 7:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
After all - you can't have matter without Mind, i.e., without an organizational pattern - even of the basic atom; and certainly, I reject any concept of Mind as an a priori reality and/or as existing without being articulated as Matter.
I agree. Deacon talks about constraints as fundamental to the derivation. But a constraint can always be stated as an if-then rule: If "certain conditions" then "certain results occur". In the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), the laws of science can all be stated as if-then rules. And the laws of science are the best-known approximations to the laws of nature. That takes us back to the equation, Theos = Logos = Tao = Dharma = Natura = God of Spinoza, Einstein... That is pantheism. But Karl Krause added 'en' to that word to form 'panentheism', which he translated as "All in God" so that he could claim that a personal God includes nature. Then Hartshorne, who was the principal editor of CP vol. 6, adopted Whitehead's process philosophy as a refinement of Peirce's theology, for his version of process theology. Hartshorne also adopted Krause's term 'panentheism'. Of course, every author adds more detail that other authors omit or dispute. But at a level that is "sufficiently vague", one could claim that some such equation is certain. John
----------------------------- 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 .
