BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I profoundly disagree with JAS's outline for 'the Reality of God'
and consider that it has deep logical and textual errors, but, I had
already decided that I would not make any comments on his outline.
Then - your quite astonishing declaration that people who might
oppose or critique his outline can be defined as doing so, not out of
intellectual concerns, but out of emotional need, and can be compared
to 'anti-vaxxers' who are defined by the majority as problematic to
society's well-being...that's quite the assertion!
You posted your criticism of people-who-criticize on this list to
the list, and therefore, I think that my objection to such a
description should also be public.
I should also note that for some odd reason - the List was silent
about Robert Marty's critique of Bellucci. And also, had nothing to
say about De Tienne's Finale.
Edwina
On Fri 24/09/21 12:38 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Jon, List,
I'm still vacationing in New Mexico, but have decided to break my
pre-determined 'rule' to only read, but not post, messages to
Peirce-L while away. This is because I want to say that, in my humble
opinion, your outline of an argumentation for the reality of God
(which I agree is consistent with Peirce's arguments to the same
effect) is logically (semeiotically) brilliant and, perhaps more
importantly, metaphysically profound from the standpoint of Peirce's
own religious metaphysics.
There will, of course, be those on the List who, for various
'reasons', dismiss it out of hand. They will hardly -- if at all --
even begin to reflect on it before their fingers start typing out an
incensed retort. Of late I'm beginning to imagine that at least some
of those who pooh-pooh such solid reasoning as you've frequently
offered in this forum (and, bracketing for a moment, the eternally, I
suspect, more than problematic subject of your outline) may suffer
from the intellectual snarl some psychologists call "motivated
cognition." Here's a friend's brief description in an email
concerning the condition in consideration of the problem of
anti-covid-vaxers in the USA.
These contra-common-sense beliefs are based on what the
psychologists call “motivated cognition” or “hot cognition,”
i.e. their real function is to serve some emotional need (such as
career validation), and their reasoning is just rationalization
cobbled together from confirmation bias and various other tricks
humans use to fool themselves. So there’s no reasoning with them,
all that does is raise the temperature of the conversation.
Well, that most likely overstates the 'issue' on Peirce-L, while my
even writing that there may be expressions of such a condition here
is sure to "raise the temperature of the conversation" so that I'm
quite certain to be blasted for even suggesting -- and you will note,
as List Moderator -- that the phenomenon may exist here at least to
some extent.
Also, there are those who do not know or will not acknowledge the
history of your and my on-List (and, admittedly, even more
frequently, off-List) philosophical disagreements. It has even been
suggested, on- and off-List, that I from time to time strongly agree
with one of your posts (now this is bizarre) because I'm under some
Svengali-like intellectual control you have over me -- rather than
what is the truth of the matter -- that while from time to time I do
disagree with your reasoning, I more often find your thinking strong
and persuasive, and in regard to matters of Peirce's own thinking,
most often solidly supported by quoting what he actually said (as
John Sowa recently suggested that we all do; I completely agree).
Well, I hope that this digression regarding conduct on the List
hasn't diluted the principal purpose of the message expressed at the
top of it. I know for a fact that you much prefer responses honestly
critical of your thinking because, as you've written on- and
off-List, your experience is that such sincere criticism tends to
sharpen it. I've seen this 'effect' in your "Additament" paper, for
example, and expressed in your sincerely thanking Edwina there for
the lengthy discussion you had with her on the List which,
apparently, provided a kind of whetstone to your own thinking on that
subject. Would that all members of this forum begin to see that that
is the kind of discussion which could benefit us all.
So, while I am quite aware that you have little to no interest in
anyone praising your work on the List or promoting your recently
published Peircean papers, I find myself incapable of not saying from
time to time, "Good work, Jon!" May we all have minds that are open
even as we are honestly critical of the reasoning of a person and not
the person himself. What is needed here is genuine critical and
creative criticism.
So, let's hope -- and even expect -- that your "outline of an
argumentation for the reality of God that is consistent with Peirce's
argument in the article, as well as other passages in his late
writings" will receive some good honest criticism (not debate; as
John Sowa recently suggested, which is surely not what this forum is
about). I would prefer that those who disagree with those views I've
expressed as List Moderator first discuss their disagreement with me
off List as suggested by Joe Ransdell on the Peirce-L page of
Arisbe. Better that we first discuss the substance of Jon's outline.
Best,
Gary Richmond (writing, in part, as List Moderator)
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 6:44 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
In "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" (1908), Peirce
defines "Musement" as "considering some wonder in one of the
Universes, or some connection between two of the three, with
speculation concerning its cause" (CP 6.458, EP 2:436). He later adds
that "the consideration of the homogeneities and connections between
two different Universes, or all three," leads to "certain lines of
reflection which will inevitably suggest the hypothesis of God's
Reality" (CP 6.465, EP 2:439). He also states, "The third Universe
comprises everything whose being consists in active power to
establish connections between different objects, especially between
objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is
essentially a Sign" (CP 6.455, EP 2:435).
Accordingly, I propose the following outline of an argumentation for
the reality of God that is consistent with Peirce's argument in the
article, as well as other passages in his late writings.
1. The surprising fact, the universe is intelligible, is observed.
2. If it is a "fact that the entire universe,--not merely the
universe of existents, but all that wider universe, embracing the
universe of existents as a part, the universe which we are all
accustomed to refer to as 'the truth,'--that all this universe is
perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP
5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906), then its intelligibility would be a matter
of course. "The third element of the phenomenon is that we perceive
it to be intelligible, that is, to be subject to law, or capable of
being represented by a general sign or Symbol. But I say the same
element is in all signs. The essential thing is that it is capable of
being represented. Whatever is capable of being represented is itself
of a representative nature" (CP 8.268, 1903).
3. Hence, we have reason to suspect that the entire universe is
composed exclusively of signs.
4. "There is a science of semeiotics whose results no more afford
room for differences of opinion than do those of mathematics, and one
of its theorems ... is that if any signs are connected, no matter how,
the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2], 1904).
5. Hence, if the entire universe is composed exclusively of signs,
then the entire universe constitutes one sign, i.e., "the Universe is
a vast representamen" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903).
6. Every sign is determined by an object that is external to the
sign, independent of the sign, and unaffected by the sign. "The
object is something external to and independent of the sign which
determines in the sign an element corresponding to itself" (R 145:28,
1905). "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive; that is to
say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect
upon the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected" (EP 2:544n22, 1906).
7. Hence, if the entire universe constitutes one sign, then it is
determined by an object that is external to the universe, independent
of the universe, and unaffected by the universe.
8. This transcendent and impassible object is what we call God--"the
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium: in my belief Really
creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434).
"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, 1908).
In summary, the hypothesis of God's reality explains the semiosic
nature of the entire universe, which in turn explains its
intelligibility. Peirce's Neglected Argument is thus cosmological,
rather than ontological as some scholars have mistakenly
characterized it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 [4] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu [5] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE
of the message and nothing in the body. More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [6] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
