Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

> On May 21, 2019, at 1:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > GR >> I truly doubt that Jon needs your "help," while insulting and >> hubristic comments such as saying that if he refuses to accept your >> "help" that he has "nothing but a puffy cloud of words" is, in my >> opinion, below any serious scho

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }1] JAS- This is what I was responding to: You wrote: "As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any deductive argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the premisses. If one premiss is false, then the c

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, List: ET: My understanding of science is that its axioms are based on objective empirical evidence; repeatable observations; quantitative measurements and fallibility. Then your definition of "science" is narrower than Peirce's. ET: Your comments referred only to the premises being tr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

John, List: JFS: I endorse Edwina's caveats. Her examples are among the "puffy clouds" that create ambiguities in any reasoning stated in ordinary language. Do you likewise endorse all of Edwina's attributions of positions to Peirce that he did not explicitly state? If not, why have you not s

Re: Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }My comments below On Tue 21/05/19 3:27 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, Helmut, List: 1] ET: Science requires empirical evidence ... JAS: The truth of this statement depends on how we define "empiri

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Please see my responses below On Tue 21/05/19 3:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List: 1] ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging the chasm

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

    Supplement: I put an "other" in my second paragraph. Individual signs cannot communicate using quantum entanglement. But perhaps the universe can use quantum entanglement for communication in itself, so may have an event horizon as big as itself.. Edwina, list,   I agree. I too think, th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Dear John, list, I have heard that we, the general public, have contempt for experts. If by that, it is meant that we do not have high regard for arguments “that take more than one step”, I tend to agree.. Well, more than three steps, in general; for abstrusity tends to count against expe

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, list,   I agree. I too think, that a sign is an action, an event, and is therefore limited by its event horizon. Though a part of any sign is due to universal laws, but that does not connect all signs to one (not completely, because only a part of the sign is due to universal laws like e

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, Helmut, List: ET: Science requires empirical evidence ... The truth of this statement depends on how we define "empirical." In the popular sense, only the Special Sciences require empirical evidence. According to Peirce, philosophy--including both Logic as Semeiotic and Metaphysics--re

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, List: ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They have no scientific content whatsoever. Peirce held that both Logic as Semeiotic and Metaphysics are *sciences*, so their content is *scient

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina and Gary R, I endorse Edwina's caveats. Her examples are among the "puffy clouds" that create ambiguities in any reasoning stated in ordinary language. After half a century of using and inventing symbolic logics, Peirce could keep the distinctions clear in his own mind, but any excerpt fr

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Helmut Science requires empirical evidence - and discussions about 'God' rarely provide that. Logic can only show us that our beliefs are logical but can't provide any proof of their pragmatic reality. I consider that a major problem in discussion of 'the sign' is the

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, All,   I think there is (and will be) a premiss missing: Scale-invariance / connectedness / noncontingency. A forest consisting of different (nonconnected) trees is not a tree, it is not scale-invariant. But there may be a forest in which the trees are connected by their roots, which mak

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list I think we have to be very cautious here. I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They have no scientific c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

John, Jon, List John quoted Jon, then wrote: Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation > is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below -- > then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation > is sound. JS: That is the m

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

On 5/20/2019 4:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below -- then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation is sound. That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, List: 1. Please reread what you quoted from CP 5.484 very carefully. It states that *semeiosis *is "an action or influence" that involves *three *subjects, one of which is a *Sign*. Hence the word "Sign" does not denote the *action*, but one of the three *subjects *involved in that acti

Re: Re: Tolerance of others in the forum, was, [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Thanks. For me love is more what you reject and affirm. Reject hurt harm and fear and you are poised to live decently. Affirm DIY -- recognizing the necessary difference among spirits-material persons as they engage in their playing out of freedom. I see everyone this way. Everything anyone does is

Aw: Re: Tolerance of others in the forum, was, [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Stephen, list,   I did not find your post offensive. I think it is a valuable thesis, that the concept of God is sometimes too much complexified. The same, I sometimes guess, applies to the concepts of money and sexuality: What "God", "money", and "sex" have in common is ontologically, that it i

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }JAS, list 1] I disagree with your assertion that Peirce never said that the triad is a sign. See.. "by 'semiosis' I mean, on the contrary, an action or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subj

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Edwina, List: ET: All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats? No, and why not? Because the conclusion *does not* follow necessarily from the premisses; the *form *of the argumentation is *invalid*. The same is tr

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }JAS, list The problem I have with this claim is that it is invalid. JAS: As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any deductive argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the premisses.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

John, List: For the record, I have consistently referred to *my* Semeiotic Argumentation, and have never--*not once*--attributed it to Peirce. What I *have* said is that Peirce *affirmed *each of its *premisses*, and I have provided ample evidence from his *explicit* statements to support that cl

Re: Tolerance of others in the forum, was, [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

I said the two words you cite and they were repeated but I assume I am the one addressed. I am deeply sorry where offense has been taken. I regard every human being as beyond judgment and judging others as a futile and uncalled for activity. . Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK

Tolerance of others in the forum, was, [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

List, Again I read, "Enough already." Indeed. Enough already of blocking the way of inquiry. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of something posted to this list, then say so and give your reasons. That ought to be sufficient. If you aren't interested in a threaded topic, don't read in

[PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric

Gary F, Thank you for a post that doesn't go off the "deep end" by attributing arguments to Peirce that he never stated, implied, ot even hinted. GF any knowledge that any mind can have of God must consist of predicates attributed to the real Subject we call “God” — which name, says Peirce, is