BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Helmut, list
JAS - you are misinterpreting and changing my outline. I am NOT
presenting MY cosmology [I don't have one] and I've no idea why you
would say such a thing. I am, from Peirce's texts, interpreting HIS
cosmology.
You wrote: I have never called Edwina's view "unpeircean." On the
contrary, as I have acknowledged before, she can certainly say that
her cosmology is inspired by Peirce's, and even claim that her
cosmology is more correct than Peirce's. What she cannot accurately
assert is that her cosmology is the same as Peirce's.
Your statement, where you deny that you term my analysis
'unpeircean' is a trivial word play. For you to say that my outline
is 'HER cosmology, and that it is 'INSPIRED' by Peirce'..and that it
is not 'the same as Peirces'...is indeed, a conclusion that my
outline is 'unPeircean'. Therefore - it is a trivial red herring of
you to assert that you have never called my analysis 'unpeircean'. Of
course you have! You've denied that it is an analysis of Peirce and
instead, claim that it is 'Edwina's cosmology'.
Nonsense. I have no agenda of outlining my personal cosmology; I've
been providing my interpretation of Peirce's cosmology.
And as so many of us have stated - neither you, JAS, nor I, can
unilaterally declare that our analysis of Peirce is the correct
analysis. All you can do - is offer up your analysis - as an analysis
of Peirce ..and leave it at that. You have no scholarly or other right
to unilaterally declare that Yours-is-the-correct-analysis.
I know you won't accept this...but...that's how scholars operate.
It's called 'analysis' not preaching the rule-of-law.
Edwina
On Tue 28/09/21 1:42 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Helmut, List:
JAS: These are Peirce's explicitly stated beliefs--mind is
primordial, such that matter is a peculiar sort of mind; the
psychical law is primordial, such that the physical law is derived
and special; and at any assignable date, our universe of existence is
evolving from utter chaos in the infinite past toward utter regularity
in the infinite future.
HR: Edwina did not say anything other. She just said, that she
thinks, that mind did not exist before matter did, and that this view
of hers is not contradicting Peirce´s.
Again, Peirce's explicitly stated view is that mind and the
psychical law are primordial, while matter is a peculiar sort of mind
and the physical law is derived and special. Edwina's explicitly
stated view is that mind and matter "co-evolved," such that neither
is primordial. If the fact that the latter directly contradicts the
former is not obvious from this juxtaposition, then I honestly do not
know what else to say.
HR: Are you a theologist doing a religious campain?
Not at all, I am simply seeking to present and discuss Peirce's
cosmology as expressed by his own explicit testimony. I do not
necessarily agree with him about every aspect of it myself, but my
own views on the subject are irrelevant.
HR: I think, you should stop calling Edwina´s view unpeircean.
I have never called Edwina's view "unpeircean." On the contrary, as
I have acknowledged before, she can certainly say that her cosmology
is inspired by Peirce's, and even claim that her cosmology is more
correct than Peirce's. What she cannot accurately assert is that her
cosmology is the same as Peirce's.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:54 AM Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, Edwina, Gary, List, Jon, you wrote: "These are Peirce's
explicitly stated beliefs--mind is primordial, such that matter is a
peculiar sort of mind; the psychical law is primordial, such that the
physical law is derived and special; and at any assignable date, our
universe of existence is evolving from utter chaos in the infinite
past toward utter regularity in the infinite future. Anyone is free
to disagree with him about this, but not to ascribe a different view
to him. The claim that his words on the subject are hopelessly vague
and ambiguous, such that any other "interpretation" of them
whatsoever must be treated as equally valid, is patently absurd."
Edwina did not say anything other. She just said, that she thinks,
that mind did not exist before matter did, and that this view of hers
is not contradicting Peirce´s. The "utter chaos" you wrote about, is
very probably not matterless either. I cannot imagine a chaos
without matter. It is not possible to tell whether there was mind
before matter existed, because all that might reach our senses is
based on interaction of matter. Physicists admit that they cannot
know what was before the big bang. Only theologists quibble on, but
their arguments are not based on the scientific method, but on
belief. Are you a theologist doing a religious campain? I think, you
should stop calling Edwina´s view unpeircean. Mind before matter is
the same topic like God, and Peirce in this context wrote
"hypothetical", which means belief, not scientific method, despite
the insertion of the term "plausibility". "Plausibility" doesn´t
have a meaning with the scientific method. What I find absurd, is
leading a theological discussion, trying to exclude somebody, and
therefore harnessing Peirce, who was not a theologist. I think he
would not like that. He believed in God, ok, but belief among
scientists should be regarded as a private affair. Making belief a
dogma is a fundamentalist thing, and fundamentalism to me is
something very nasty and unscientific. Best, Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
