Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

*Deus, sive Natura*: “That eternal and infinite being we call *God*, or *Nature*, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface), Spinoza On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > Edwina, list > > > > It is clear that the concept of god in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke, list: I think what you just said is expressible by seeking explanations for same/different in the following: “Only *everybody* can know the truth.” ~Goethe, more or less… “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry, I don’t grasp your point. Especially the introduction of the individual (whether as a singular or an atom?) escapes my understanding. With regard to your remark about the community knowing and science, I just remark that in my opinion the community knowing is only a sub-section of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke, Kirsti, list: You said: AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the order of things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge secondness is first. I would add, in the order of understanding thirdness is first… But Aristotle also said: “*For learning proceeds

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Thanks Soren, but -the problem with terms such as pantheism and panentheism - is that they don't define the term 'god'. By the way, when/if I refer to Peirce as a 'pantheist', I am possibly - and probably- using the term incorrectly. I really mean 'pansemiotician'; i.e., that semiosis

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Kirsti, As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of voice. In discussions I always try to be short as possible. Maybe this time to my detriment. I do thank you for te opportunity you offer to try to become more clear. I will add some words between the lines. K: Dear

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jeff, list Thanks. That is also my impression, but I was not sure. Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 22. oktober 2016 05:29 To: Søren Brier Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Søren, List:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

A most importan note! Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 21.10.2016 20:55: On 10/21/2016 1:09 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: By "scientific causality," do you mean /efficient/ causality (i.e., brute reactions), /final/ causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else altogether? Scientific

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Auke & al. It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did not share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere. Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting point was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, even before I

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Jerry Good but difficult question. I can give my tentative answers from the top of my head: What is the role of efficient causality in your thinking about biology? I SEE IT AS PART OF SELF-ORGANIZING AUTOPOIETIC TENDENCIES PARTLY BASED ON NONE-EQULIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS. What is the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

I haven’t been following this discussion closely due to illness, but it seems to me that a lot of the trouble with the role of subjects and predicates can be alleviated in favour of predicates) by Peirce’s colocalization. The SP distinction can be reinterpreted so that the subject becomes