Edwina, List: ET: A problem that I have with the argument of JAS is that the definition of the term of 'God' is ambiguous and even, missing.
In this context, I am quite obviously employing Peirce's own straightforward definition of God as "*the *definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*: in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908). ET: ... I disagree with JAS's claim that 'if the entire universe is a Sign, then what is its Object' - I presume that by 'Object', he refers to 'God'. It was not a claim, but a question, to which I then suggested an answer. Peirce affirmed that the entire Universe is a Sign, and that every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. The conclusion that *necessarily *follows is that the entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself. My question was, what is that Object? It clearly cannot be anything *within *the Universe, so it must be something that *transcends *the Universe. Peirce's definition of God, as quoted above, fits the bill; especially when we also take into account his emphatic *denials*, in four different manuscript drafts, that God is anything "immanent in" Nature or the three Universes. Of course, anyone is free to *deny *that the entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself. This just logically requires *also *denying *either *that the Universe is a Sign *or *that every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself (or both), and thereby deviating from Peirce's own explicitly stated views. ET: "A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and every previous time" 6.490. But Peirce further explains pure mind "as creative of thought, must, so far as it is manifested in time, appear as having a character related to the habit-taking capacity". And that means - within time. Pure mind is not itself *within* time--that would be a self-contradiction, since Peirce had just said (as quoted) that pure mind has its being *out of *time--but it is *manifested *in time, which is not the same thing. ET: And - 'the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness'. I interpret this as part of a *reductio ad absurdum*, which demonstrates that without *necessary *being (*Ens necessarium*), there would be no being *at all*. The only absolutely necessary result of a state of utter nothingness is ... utter nothingness. For the long version, see my online paper <https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187> in *Signs - International Journal of Semiotics*. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:16 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, List > > A problem that I have with the argument of JAS is that the definition of > the term of 'God' is ambiguous and even, missing.. I know that JAS as a > theist probably has a specific definition in his mind when he writes the > term. I, as an atheist, have a different definition - and prefer the > analogy that Peirce used, which is 'Mind'. > > What is Mind? It is certainly not an Object - that is, I disagree with > JAS's claim that 'if the entire universe is a Sign, then what is its > Object' - I presume that by 'Object', he refers to 'God'. To my > understanding of the Peircean semiosis, Mind is the rationalization of > energy into matter - and, as such, Mind cannot exist 'per se' outside of > Matter. That is, the entire universe as a semiosic process, has no Dynamic > Object; it generates its own DOs in the semiosic process. > > "A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since all > that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and every > previous time" 6.490. But Peirce further explains pure mind "as creative of > thought, must, so far as it is manifested in time, appear as having a > character related to the habit-taking capacity". And that means - within > time. > > And - 'the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary results > of a state of utter nothingness'. This state of 'utter nothingness' is NOT > an object and is not Mind. Mind emerges with Matter, within the functions > of the three universes/ categorical modes. > > Therefore, my definition of the term of 'God' is quite different, I > suspect, from that of JAS - and I am not convinced that the JAS definition > - which is not clear - aligns with the Peircean definition. > > Edwina Taborsky >
----------------------------- 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 message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
