Gary R, list I find it odd that you state that I have never agreed with Peirce’s writing that ‘matter is merely mind deaded by the development of habits’…and that ‘physical laws are habits’..the results of evolution.
I’ve always been totally supportive of these concepts! In fact - I’ve written numerous papers within such themes…dealing with matter-as-mind; with mind as expressed as matter; matter as feet mind and so on. ...with the evolution of habits [ which are created by mind] ; with these habits within the physicochemical as well as biological and conceptual realms…[a recent paper: Rational Decision-Making in Biological Systems]. So- I’m quite surprised why you conclude that a basic theme of my work [ mind-as forming matter]…doesn’t exist!!! I don’t see abduction as the first step; I see observation as the first step…and then, the mind takes over viewing these ’surprising facts’ and, as an abductive action, comes up with a plausible hypothesis. And as I’ve said - I’m not interested in any religious discussion - and in my view, the concept of an agential ’supernatural' agent [ god] is a religious discussion, since, religious analysis , is, by definition, focused on the metaphysical and cosmological agential forces. [check out any philosophical definition of religion]. Ie.. as a metaphysical moral vision’ ; as Aristotle’s 'unmoved Mover’. Etc. I am also not talking about the societal aspects of an organized religion, ie, one where a political infrastructure has eventually moved in, to take control of the beliefs, to instruct the population in these beliefs. I am talking about the concepts that explore metaphysics and cosmological concepts that establish the notion of a ’superior force/agent [ god] operative within the physical world. And as I’ve said - these are not pragmaticist, in my view, but beliefs separate from objective reality. There can be, never, any scientific proof of such beliefs. So- we either hold them, personally, or we don’t. I don’t see the point of your references [ appeal to authority?] for there can be just as many texts focused on the absence of a god - I disagree with your interpretation of Peirce’s ‘god’; I prefer his analogy of god-as-Mind. As I’ve repeatedly said - I fully agree with such an analogy. And I consider that Peirce sees this Mind as operative within self-organization [ see his outline of the emergence of the universe from ’nothing' 1.412 - which is obviously self-organizing and evolving habits]. Edwina . > On Oct 26, 2024, at 7:59 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, Jon, List, > > ET: My focus remains on the pragmaticist and objective idealism zone. > GR: Mine too. I discussed that focus in recent posts the content of which you > haven't responded to except by restating yours. Of course it should be > obvious that the pragmaticistic and objective idealistic are Peirce's focus > too. But as we have in the past we continue to see these matters quite > differently. For example, you seem never to have agreed with Peirce's writing > that "matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habits," nor that > he holds "the doctrine that physical laws are habits [. . .] I mean that they > are results of evolution, in which mind has had the primary influence" (all > emphasis added). > > As for 'pragmatism', as Jon had recently reminded us in connection with the > hypothesis of God's reality, Peirce held that “[T]he whole of pragmatism is > nothing else than the logic of abduction. All that pragmatism aims to do is > to support and enforce this method.” And as I recently commented, a plausible > abduction is the first step in a complete inquiry. Still, as I wrote, Peirce > argues for "the potential pragmatic benefits to humanity of a belief in God" > (emphasis added). So, while atheists will have none of this "belief in God" > talk, Peirce, Jon, and I -- and many scientists to boot -- believe in God and > find value in religion. Here are a few classic examples (I read only portions > of each of these works -- and several others -- some years back): > Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for > Belief (2006). Collins is a geneticist and former director of the National > Institutes of Health; he argues that science and faith can be compatible. > > Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978). I assume everyone knows of > this world-famous astronomer and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for > Space Studies. Here he reflects on the implications of cosmology and the > universe’s origins in the interest of bridging science and belief in God. > > John Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker > (1994). Polkinghorne, a renowned physicist, writes about his faith journey > and how he reconciles his scientific background with belief in God. > > John D. Barrow, “God and the Laws of Physics,” Physics World (1998). In this > article Barrow, who is a physicist and cosmologist, shares his thoughts on > the relationship between God and the physical laws governing the universe. > > Wolfgang Smith, The God of the Quantum Physicists: Quantum Reality and > Religious Thought (1986). This mathematician and physicist offers a > perspective on quantum theory that attempts to reconcile scientific inquiry > with metaphysical and theological ideas. > > I offer these works merely to suggest to List members that Peirce is in no > way an anomalous scientific thinker in this matter. But continuing, I earlier > wrote: > > In the N.A. and elsewhere Peirce discusses the potential pragmatic benefits > to humanity of a belief in God should it be proved, linking such belief to > practical outcomes, intellectual satisfaction, moral grounding, and more. > > "If God Really be.. . in view of the generally conceded truth that religion, > were it but proved, [it] would be a good outweighing all others. . ." (in the > N.A.) CSP > > ET: I do consider that references to god are religious - and after all, > religion does deal specifically with the metaphysical and cosmological - and > I don’t want to go into a religious discussion since I consider its axioms > are and must be, beliefs -- and outside of pragmaticism. > GR: I think you excluded the word 'not' in "after all, religion does [not] > deal specifically with the metaphysical and cosmological." Is that correct? > Again, you disagree with Peirce. Well, that's fine; I suppose an avowed > atheist must in this matter. Indeed I do myself, but only very occasionally. > But if we're considering Peirce's expressed views, in his 1903 Classification > of the Sciences, Peirce outlines three branches of the Science of > Metaphysics: 1. General Metaphysics, 2. Physical Metaphysics, 3. Psychical, > or Religious Metaphysics (Peirce's terminology). > > ET: Although - if we were to analyze god as ‘Mind’ - as Peirce suggests, > then, I could see the value of such a discussion - because Mind does not have > any agential attributes, as far as I understand, but is instead, an > organizing principle made up of the three categories - which are firmly > rooted in the objective world. > GR: While Peirce at least once refers to God as "an absolute Mind," he makes > it clear that he's not talking about God as a 'psychical entity', but rather, > as I see it, as a 'mind-like' power in the universe ensuring the growth of > order and rationality. I believe Jon disagrees with this interpretation and, > I must immediately note that there is considerable source material to support > his objection. For example: > > CSP: “The hypothesis, therefore, is that God is an Ens necessarium in the > sense that He is a being whose mode of being is different from that of the > universe . . .” (emphasis added). > > Still, there lurks in some of his writing the germ of an idea that I > interpret to mean that there must be a mind-like power behind the structuring > and evolution of the cosmos (not some 'self-organizing' mechanism which even > Big Bang theory suggests is improbable in the extreme). This leads me (and > others) to posit such views as the kind of cosmic-christic theory I have > recently been working on: that God is not -- cannot be wholly outside his > creation (although creator of it), but is somehow immanent and active in it, > 'contributing' (so to speak) all that we might consider semeiotically a kind > of 'cosmic inquiry' leading to various kinds of evolution and and even the > growth of reasonable, thus evidencing a kind of living divine principle that > represents a, shall we say, continuation of creation aligned not only with > the evolution of natural process, but with the growth of reason in the > universe more generally. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 9:54 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Gary R, list >> >> My focus remains on the pragmaticist and objective idealism zone. I do >> consider that references to god are religious - and after all, religion does >> deal specifically with the metaphysical and cosmological - and I don’t want >> to go into a religious discussion since I consider its axioms are and must >> be, beliefs -- and outside of pragmaticism. >> >> Although - if we were to analyze god as ‘Mind’ - as Peirce suggests, then, I >> could see the value of such a discussion - because Mind does not have any >> agential attributes, as far as I understand, but is instead, an organizing >> principle made up of the three categories - which are firmly rooted in the >> objective world. >> >> Edwina. >> >> >> >>> On Oct 25, 2024, at 11:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Jon, Edwina, Helmut, List, >>> >>> Jon wrote: >>> >>> [W]hat Peirce associates directly with pragmatism is >>> abduction/retroduction--ampliative reasoning, "the only logical operation >>> which introduces any new idea" . . . According to him, the transcendent >>> reality of God as Ens necessarium is a highly plausible metaphysical >>> hypothesis (not a religious belief) to explain the co-reality of the three >>> universes (and corresponding categories) that together encompass any and >>> all observable phenomena. >>> >>> Allow me to amplify this a bit, Jon. I would suggest that Peirce sees God >>> not as the creator of distinct elements in the cosmos, but as the unifying >>> principle that is necessary for the three universes to come into being and, >>> further, guaranteeing that the phenomena which follow from them are >>> interrelated. This surely aligns with his synechism for it implies that >>> reality is not a collection of isolated parts but, rather, an >>> interconnected whole in space and time. >>> >>> And by offering God as a 'highly plausible hypothesis' he makes clear that, >>> at least in his view (with which, of course, I agree), such a metaphysical >>> question is indeed subject to inquiry just as other scientific hypotheses >>> are (recalling that for Peirce metaphysics is a theoretical science). >>> Positing God as Ens necessarium is a metaphysical context first concerned >>> with forming a reasonable, plausible hypothesis which might explain aspects >>> of the observable universe such as the role of the Three Universes (and, >>> so, the three categories) in its structure and the extent to which signs >>> appear to perfuse that structure. >>> >>> Of course, from the scientific standpoint, offering a plausible hypothesis >>> is only the beginning of a complete scientific inquiry. There are then >>> close observations to be made, deducing what follows from the hypothesis in >>> relation to these observations for the express purpose of devising tests, >>> and finally the metaphysical equivalent devising inductive experiments to >>> see to which extent the hypothesis is confirmed (or not). Here too, as in >>> semeiotics, it is my opinion that Peirce should be seen as a >>> 'backswoodsman', as a pioneer, exploring a vast, unknown intellectual >>> landscape. >>> >>> Peirce's closely associating abduction with pragmatism shows him committed >>> to exploring metaphysical ideas with logical and scientific rigor, even >>> inquiring into that which might be considered the ultimate metaphysical >>> idea in one of the three branches he outlines in his 'Classification of the >>> Sciences'. And his tentative conclusion there would seem to be that God, as >>> Ens necessarium, is not a mere "abstract concept" but a necessary principle >>> for explaining the reality of the universe, its semiotic nature, the roles >>> and relations of the Three Universes, and the continuity of if it all, even >>> in -- perhaps especially in -- its evolution. To the extent that Peirce's >>> God is 'benevolent;, as he states be believes God to be at the head of the >>> N.A., it also serves as the underlying principle of evolutionary love. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 9:47 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> List: >>>> >>>> Like I said, one can certainly reject the first premiss of my deductive >>>> alternative and deem it unsound accordingly. My point in bringing it up >>>> was more formal than material--as demonstrated below, any justificatory >>>> rationale can be substituted for both the antecedent of the conditional >>>> proposition and the second premiss, with the argumentation remaining >>>> logically valid (not fallacious). >>>> >>>> Moreover, every deductive argumentation is ultimately "circular" in the >>>> sense that because it represents necessary inferences, there is nothing in >>>> the conclusion that is not already implied by the premisses. This is only >>>> problematic when the conclusion is covertly assumed by one of those >>>> premisses, such that it may be fairly described as having been "smuggled >>>> into" them. >>>> >>>> In any case, like I also said, what Peirce associates directly with >>>> pragmatism is abduction/retroduction--ampliative reasoning, "the only >>>> logical operation which introduces any new idea" (CP 5.171, EP 2:216, >>>> 1903). According to him, the transcendent reality of God as Ens >>>> necessarium is a highly plausible metaphysical hypothesis (not a religious >>>> belief) to explain the co-reality of the three universes (and >>>> corresponding categories) that together encompass any and all observable >>>> phenomena. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> JAS, list >>>>> >>>>> You wrote: >>>>>> -if believing in God gives me intellectual satisfaction and moral >>>>>> grounding, then I am justified in believing in God; and believing in God >>>>>> gives me intellectual satisfaction and moral grounding; hence, I am >>>>>> justified in believing in God. >>>>> I consider this pragmatically empty. Replace the terms: >>>>> >>>>> IF believing that witches cause illness gives me intellectual >>>>> satisfaction and moral grounding [ because I know who/what to blame], >>>>> THEN, I am justified in believing in witches as causal of illness. >>>>> >>>>> Essentially this argument sets up, not a pragmaticist format of >>>>> evidentiary requirements but an entirely individual subjective and >>>>> emotional format. Its evidentiary ‘proof’ is circular - ie - it is >>>>> confined; it rests within the individual’s private emotions. As Peirce >>>>> said - to make individuals the locus of proof is ‘most pernicious [ can’t >>>>> remember the site].. >>>>> >>>>> The point is - such an argumentative framework rejects scientific and >>>>> thus objective reasoning. It is circular - and abduction is not circular >>>>> but moves from multiple inductive empirical observations to form a >>>>> possible hypothesis. That is the point of pragmaticism and objective >>>>> idealism - that these arguments are grounded in existential observations >>>>> and experiences. . >>>>> >>>>> Edwina >>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >>>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>>> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while >>>> to repair / update all the links! >>>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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. >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
