Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Whenever Peirce wrote about "nothing" as the starting point of "everything," > he seemed to have this idea of "boundless possibility" in mind, which I > associate with the clean blackboard in his RLT diagram. It is indeed a > non-

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry, List: Answer which question? The one that you posed initially? CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing; JLRC: In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically? philosophically? theologicall

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: Whenever Peirce wrote about "nothing" as the starting point of "everything," he seemed to have this idea of "boundless possibility" in mind, which I associate with the clean blackboard in his RLT diagram. It is indeed a non-traditional notion of "nothing," but I disagree with your as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: Oh, I now remember who asked to be informed when he was acting a nominalist. For nominalists do this: “The Nominalists flatly denied the existence of anything but the concrete. For them, a universal name was in itself a mere “flatus voices”, according to Ockam’s famous expressio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon: >From my perspective, the question posed to you was intelligible to an >undergraduate. You describe yourself as "Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman”. If you do not want to answer this question about your beliefs, simply say you do not want to answer. Cheers Jer

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > So I think we can say pretty definitively that Peirce's conception of God, at > least in 1908, does involve God actually creating out of "nothing," which he > consistently characterizes as "less than a blank." Right, I recognize th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry, List: I am still not following you. Are you suggesting that meanings are always singular, never general? What makes dictionaries possible if everyone's "literal meanings" of the same terms are (or could be) completely different, just because we are different individual people? For that m

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: In various fragmentary drafts of "A Neglected Argument" that appear in R 841 and R 843, Peirce states each of the following. "'God,' in what sense?" ask ye? When so 'capitalized' (as we Americans say) it is, throughout this paper, the definable proper noun, i.e. *Ens necessarium*, w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

List: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? In more than 20 years of posting to List serves, this is among the most surprising responses I have ever rece

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

s are 'non-Peircean'. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky >> *Cc:* Peirce List >> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ... > Pragmatically, all real reactions have a tendency toward reg

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

I’ll confess I don’t quite understand what is at stake here. I’ll admit my biases against trying to ground meaning in terms of anything like “literalness” whether it be Saussure (or at least what goes under that term) or the approach of say Rorty in the literal vs. metaphor approach. Even in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

in > debating with you - as the 'debate' reduces into you asserting your view > and claiming that other views are 'non-Peircean'. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Peirce List > *S

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

o:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Peirce List > *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > Are you suggesting, then, that my "analysis" of the quotes that I cited > fro

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

idt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce List Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: Are you suggesting, then, that my "analysis" of the quotes that I cited from "New Elements

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

for the triad of semiosis, I've explained mediation many times before > and won't repeat that explanation. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Peirce List > *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry, List: Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone else's, or from the "generic meaning"? As a first attempt ... - Pragmatically, all real reactions have a tendency toward regularity (i.e., habit-taking). - Philosophically, 1ns and 2ns are both govern

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

't repeat that explanation. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce List Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: Would you mind clarify

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > I am not sure what you mean by "the scope of [my] literality," or the precise > distinction that you are drawing between "pragmatically" vs. > "philosophically" vs. "theologically." Would you mind clarifying? The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, List: Would you mind clarifying, as well? What exactly do you mean by "a 'literal-bound' analysis of Peirce"? What exactly is "that evolving and complex mediating 'law'" that you seem to believe is essential to proper interpretation? As far as I can tell, Jerry did not point out any suc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry, List: I am not sure what you mean by "the scope of [my] literality," or the precise distinction that you are drawing between "pragmatically" vs. "philosophically" vs. "theologically." Would you mind clarifying? In any case, since it occurs only a few paragraphs later within the same docum

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

3, 2017 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jon: On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely nothing; In view of the scope of your lit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely > nothing; In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically? philosophically? theologically?

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

List: This is resurrecting a thread from a few months ago, but I just came across some passages near the end of "New Elements" (EP 2:322-324; c. 1904) that seem to provide further confirmation of how I have been interpreting Peirce's cosmology; in particular, what he meant by "nothing" as its star

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Kirsti, We are in violent agreement. I looked at the slides you provided. With as good as all of them, was mark 'wrong', wrong, and again wrong. I have been doing R & D in AI for years, and the point I'm trying to make is that current AI research is *on the wrong track* . I presented an earli

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 11/12/2016 12:55 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: You wrote: "Different languages have different options for the grammatical forms that express such relations. The number of options could lead to a combinatorial explosion, but the practical number is limited by human memory." I take your fi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, list. You wrote: "Different languages have different options for the grammatical forms that express such relations. The number of options could lead to a combinatorial explosion, but the practical number is limited by human memory." I take your first sentence as a most important note.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, Jon A, Jeff, Jerry, Jon AS, Kirsti, This topic has so many ramifications that it's impossible to say anything complete and definitive. The observation I considered important was Bateson's remark about stories as a natural way for minds or quasi-minds to think, talk, and reason about expe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, list, Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many just as possible stories. Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, List: My initial thought when I read your post was that your identification of three different "kinds of time" might align nicely with the points of view of the three Categories that Nicholas Guardiano adopted to analyze Peirce's cosmogony in the paper that I linked yesterday in the thread o

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, Kirsti, list, ET > I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, whi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: From Aristotle, *Physics*: “But we apprehend time only when we have marked motion, marking it by ‘before’ and ‘after’; and it is only when we have perceived ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion that we say that time has elapsed. Now we mark them by judging that A and B are different,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

George Herbert Spencer? What was I thinking? I meant George Spencer Brown. Edwina - 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 messag

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John FS; thanks for your comments. See mine below. 1] ET I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. JFS: I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from p. 2 of a book on biosemioti

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, Kirsti, list, ET I wish we could get into the analysis of time in more detail. I came across a short passage by Gregory Bateson that clarifies the issues. See the attached Bateson79.jpg, which is an excerpt from p. 2 of a book on biosemiotics (see below). Following is the critical poi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, list, Everyone seems to take the Big Bang hypothesis as granted. Still, it is just a hypothesis with meagre, if any evidence. And John, a most interesting question you posed: Does anyone know if he had written anything about embedding our universe in a hypothetical space of higher dime

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

their further arguments, after yours, are essentially irrelevant. > > OK - I declare that I won't engage further with you. > > Edwina > > > > > > - Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Mike Bergman > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iup

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

November 05, 2016 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Mike, List: I can definitely understand how some would find these discussions "tiresome," but almost simultaneously with your negative response, I received a private reply

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Mike, List: I can definitely understand how some would find these discussions "tiresome," but almost simultaneously with your negative response, I received a private reply to the very same message from a "lurker" stating, "This is great, and offlist - just wanted you to know that I enjoyed this po

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien Sent:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

re so upset and > angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your > analysis. > > I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but, > there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we > can come to

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

gt; there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we > can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually > comment... > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

few on this list who actually comment... Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, List: ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*. The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be? I

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ileged one 'Set' - which then >> became our particular universe. >> >> Therefore, I equally don't read Peirce as having the three categories >> 'existential' in the pre BigBang phase; my reading is that these three >> categories, which are funda

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:04 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Helmut, List, Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, list, Yes, that is what I suspect too: It is not about chronologic: Creation, God, necessity, causality. Due to our limited human experience we cannot see these things other than in time flow, chronologically, so likely with a beginning. But maybe causation and time flow are not so strictly

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

t of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:04 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Helmut, List, Whatev

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 11/4/2016 12:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: JFS: But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some time thereafter, there were no minds or quasi-minds that could perceive and interpret that existence. But there was a physical kind of monadic and dyadic pre-semiosis. ET: I don't know that anal

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I had hoped my suggestion a while back of a Platonic cosmos pre-the Big Bang > (note: of course I completely agree with Clark that one shouldn't really > bring such very much later notions into the picture, which is why I used the > modif

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Helmut, List: The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, *assuming *that they have remained essen

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

d are not separate from it. > > Therefore - you and Jon, and others, may certainly reject my reading of > Peirce, just as I reject yours and Jon's - but, I don't think we are at the > stage where we can definitely say that only ONE reading is The Accurate > One. I offer my re

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

e Accurate One. I offer my reading; some on the list may agree; some may not. That is as far as a scholarly list can go, I think.   Edwina             ----- Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

I think. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, Jon S, List, I certainly do not intend to get into a long (or even a short)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

e tendency toward consistency. This > habit is a generalizing tendency" 6.204. > > The three categories are fundamental laws of nature; their origin is with > nature - which includes the physico-chemical as well as biological realms. > Therefore - I disagree that they are pre-BigB

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

disagree that they are pre-BigBang. I read Peirce that they originate, as natural laws, with the BigBang's potentiality. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and N

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, List: Excellent comments. See mine below: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 1) >> my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind universe.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

7;There is a certain element of continuity in this line" >> 6.203]..This is a unit in Secondness. >> >> The white chalk line appears within the act of Firstness, but is, in >> itself, operating ALSO within the mode of Secondness - because it is >> discrete and distin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Mike, list - I totally, fully agree. Edwina - Original Message - From: Mike Bergman To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ause it is > discrete and distinct. > > And then, habits or Thirdness, that generalizing tendency, develops. NOTE > - Thirdness did not pre-exist on its own; it develops as the discrete units > appear within Firstness and Secondness. That is, Thirdness is embedded > within the existent

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 11/4/2016 9:19 AM, John F Sowa wrote: On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 11/4/2016 8:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: my own view that our 'existential cosmos' IS a three category semiosic universe. That is, my view is that the three categories only emerge within the existentiality of the matter/mind universe. Yes. But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some ti

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

er operating within Firstness and Secondness. It 'feeds and works' within these individual 'bits'...and develops generalizing laws. That's how I see this metaphor. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

in this >> 'original chaos' - no 'existences' and no 'feelings'. Nothing. >> >> Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

no 'feelings'. Nothing. > > Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:25 PM > *Sub

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

;original chaos' - no 'existences' and no 'feelings'. Nothing. Now - of course, and as usual, you can disagree with me. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:25 PM Sub

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

with one - > certainly, science hasn't been able to do so, and since I'm an atheist, > then, I'm not going to offer a self-organized belief in god as having been > First Cause. I simply don't know. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* J

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > I agree that Pierce claims that to do science you must have faith in the > possibility of finding truth and that knowing is connected to thirdness. I > wonder if it has anything to do with agapism? I think in the places he uses faith he mea

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Is it helpful at all to refer to "actualization," rather than "cause"? > Edwina's position, as I understand it, is that our existing universe is not > only self-organizing but also self-generating or self-originating; as Houser > put

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

27;m not going to offer a self-organized belief in god as having been First Cause. I simply don't know. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: Your points, as usual, are well-taken. Is it helpful at all to refer to "actualization," rather than "cause"? Edwina's position, as I understand it, is that our existing universe is not only self-*organizing *but also self-*generating *or self-*originating*; as Houser put it in his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > ET: Of course I didn't mean an individual [human or god] force by the term > of 'chance'!. I find that Jon jumps to disagree with me as a matter of habit. > Either that, or his tendency to read in a literal manner leads him to such >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

f organization of matter/mind that is novel, >> spontaneous - and thus, has no habits. BUT, it is not 'nothing', for >> otherwise matter would never evolve its new habits. Matter only evolves >> these new habits when Firstness introduces a novel form [which is not >> &#

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

rstness introduces a novel form [which is not > 'nothing' but a novel form] ..and this novel form can then persist within > its taking on of habits/Thirdness. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Clark Goble > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Thursday, Nove

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

- Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: While I personally disagree with process th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

rejects neutrality. For you - everything MUST be > a judgment; you either accept or reject. I don't agree with this. > > 6) As for your conclusion that I'm in the minority - well, that's another > statistical flaw since of course, you don't know - and the 'well

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: The pragmatic maxim: If good because useful, then not useful because we do not even look to it. Therefore, not useful. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arri

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational > ur-continuity. I’m not sure that’s right. There’s certainly a type of continuity in quantum field theory but it’s unlike Peirce’s ur-continutiy because QFT pretty well a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

the minority - well, that's another statistical flaw since of course, you don't know - and the 'well-chosen average' is not always right. Edwina ----- Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 0

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree > with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process > theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected determinism--or > necessita

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] Sent: 2. november 2016 22:43 To: John F Sowa Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) John, List: The question still aris

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: All good points, thanks. Jon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philos

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, List: ET: I would expect Jon S to disagree. While I personally disagree with process theology itself, I actually agree with Clark that Peirce's writings can plausibly be interpreted from a process theology perspective. Peirce clearly rejected determinism--or necessitarianism, as he usu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the > historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical > ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or extending arguments > bey

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

adic semiosic network > can't be overlooked. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Clark Goble > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of 'u

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: CG: As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the historic ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical ones (whether particular views of Peirce were correct or extending arguments beyond where Peirce took them). I agree, and I have tried to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ontent, it is a JUDGMENT. > The latter is - no action and no judgment. > > 5) I don't consider that the NA has anything to do with Peirce's long > analyses of the emergence and evolution of matter/mind. > > And as I said - in my statement that this type of argumen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of > 'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this > 'ur-continuity'. Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang > Thirdness. > > But I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

dwina - Original Message ----- From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) On Nov 2, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Jon and I (and others) have argue

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Jon and I (and others) have argued that the 3ns which "emerges" following the > creation of this Universe (that is, after the Big Bang, so to loosely speak) > is *not* the same as the 3ns which is the ur-continuity represented by the > b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ider that the NA has anything to do with Peirce's long analyses of the emergence and evolution of matter/mind. And as I said - in my statement that this type of argument goes nowhere and has little to do with Peirce - that's exactly what is happening now. Edwina - Original Mes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

l - then, > this thread moves away from discussion to circularity with you insisting > that you have 'proved your case' and 'there is no debate'. But - I don't > see such finality. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

orocally, correlates with the rest of his > work. Your insistence that it does; that your interpretation is 'beyond > debate' ; that 'it is incontrovertible' ..etc...are indeed powerful > statements but these phrases are not arguments. > > So- I don't see the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

nterclaims. They have less to do with Peirce than with ourselves. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

7;there is no debate'. But - I don't see such finality. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's C

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

. > > I don't see the point of such a discussion. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gary Richmond > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

the point of such a discussion. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, Jon, List. Soren wrote: ​ But if the Log

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

and the trandscendentalist’s view too. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 2. november 2016 22:43 > *To:* John F Sowa > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ian-and-buddhist.pdf and he was hired by Paul Carus the editor of > the Monist. Of cause we here have Emerson and the trandscendentalist’s view > too. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.co

  1   2   >