Edwina, List:
This is a classic case of having a predetermined view and then imposing it
on the text, rather than reading and understanding the author's actual
words.
For one thing, you consistently fall back on CP 1.412, treating it as if it
were Peirce's definitive description of his cosmology.
Gary R, list
I continue to disagree with your and JAS's interpretation. You have
both set up a primordial Mind, [what is its ultimate source??] which
then articulates itself within Matter.
My reading of Peirce is that 'objective idealism' means that Mind is
not primord
Edwina, List:
ET: You, JAS, are giving us only half of the quotation that defines
'Objective Idealism'.
This is patently false, since Gary R. quoted the entire passage just a
couple of days ago, and I have quoted both parts of the relevant sentence
throughout this exchange.
ET: My interpretat
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Helmut, list
1] Your first quote [JAS's] where you quote Peirce that god is 'a
Spirit, or Mind" does not, as I interpret, mean that God is 3ns. I've
never viewed Mind as equated with 'Spirit' but as equated w
Helmut, Edwina, List:
HR: Well, this is just out of intuition: I would say, that "pure mind" or
"disembodied spirit" is not 3ns, but 1ns ...
Okay, but that is definitely not what *Peirce* said.
CSP: Thus, He [God] is so much like a mind, and so little like a singular
Existent (meaning by an E
Helmut, list
I'd agree with you - I don't see 'pure mind' or 'disembodied spirit'
as 3ns. Thirdness, in my understanding, emerges WITH Matter and is not
separate from its existence. And yes, possibility/1ns is a state and
outside of time.
With regard to the concept of a
Jon, list,
Well, this is just out of intuition: I would say, that "pure mind" or "disembodied spirit" is not 3ns, but 1ns: Possibility. Possibility is a state, not a process, so it does not depend on time. Maybe even not on space? But a 3ns includes 2ns, reaction, and reaction is a process in
Edwina, List:
ET: You are merging 'idealism' and 'objective idealism' and the two are
not synonyms of each other.
Of course they are not synonyms; as I already explained, *objective *idealism
is one *variety *of idealism, and *subjective *idealism is another. Peirce
was distinguishing his "Sch
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Again, I disagree with your interpretation. You are merging
'idealism' and 'objective idealism' and the two are not synonyms of
each other.
I disagree that Peirce sees 'Mind as more fundamental
Edwina, List:
ET: Peirce did write that "the physical law as derived and special, the
psychical law alone as primordial, which is idealism" 6.24. BUT he did NOT
say that he accepted this - ie, with idealism alone as primordial; and the
physical as derived.
On the contrary, he plainly stated tha
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Please define 'objective idealism'. As a 'species of idealism' [and
I'm not sure what that means] - please explain the difference between
'idealism' and 'objective idealism'. I don't object to the term o
Edwina, List:
ET: I feel that your view of Peirce, with its 'idealism' rather than
'objective idealism' is in line with your own personal theism.
I feel that your view of Peirce, with its absurd claim that objective
idealism is somehow not a species of idealism, is in line with your own
persona
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I cannot find that section in 2.322 where Peirce inserts, in
brackets that, eg, 'consciousness' is [1ns]...etc - and I disagree
with such an insertion. Firstness is feeling, without consciousness -
which
Edwina, List:
ET: Simply repeating your position is not an argument.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:09 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS, list
>
> Simply repeating your position is not an argument. As I've said - you have
> failed to differentiate - and it's a crucial differentiati
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Simply repeating your position is not an argument. As I've said -
you have failed to differentiate - and it's a crucial differentiation
- between 'idealism' and 'objective idealism'.
This means
Helmut, List:
On the contrary, according to Peirce, the necessary being of pure mind
(3ns) does not require time, space, or matter.
CSP: If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in
the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction
[2ns] and no qualit
16 matches
Mail list logo
