Edwina, We have both expressed our views on the matter: you are settled on yours, so I see no reason for us to continue this discussion. Indeed, it's gotten repetitive and, so, a time-sink of sorts.
Best, Gary R On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 8:31 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 i*n 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]> > 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]> >> 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]> 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 >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM Edwina Taborsky < >>> [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 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. >> >> >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
