BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }See
my responses below:
On Tue 14/05/19 6:10 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
1} 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.
JAS: 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).
EDWINA That is not a definition but an assertion - yet to be defined
and argued.
2] 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'.
JAS: 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.
EDWINA I disagree with your conclusion that 'necessarily follows'
"is that the entire Universe is determined by an Object other than
itself". As Peirce said - the 'whole universe is a Sign' - and where
does he argue that there is anything OUTSIDE of the universe?
Furthermore, although every Sign is determined by an Object other
than itself - this 'Object' is itself a Sign. There are no 'free and
non-semiotic objects' within the universe.
Peirce's definition of God is not as a 'necessity' - which is not a
definition of God's attributes, but is comparable to 'that analogue
of mind' 6.502]. And furthermore, he outlines this 'mind' not as an
external object to the semiosic universe, and not as 'the creator of
the universe' but as a force NOW creating the universe' - 6.505,
which puts that force-of-God firmly WITHIN the universe and thus,
firmly within the semiosic process. As Peirce says "we must regard
Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God' 6.506. Again, I
understand that this puts the 'force-of-God within the semiosic
universe.
3. JAS: 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.
EDWINA No - I disagree with your view of semiosis. Semiosis is an
ongoing interactional process - which includes the external Object.
This external Object to a Sign does not determine the Sign in a
linear fashion [unless we are talking about a mechanical interaction]
but interactively informs and is informed by the Sign - to produce
another Object/Sign. That external Object is itself functioning
within the semiosic process. There are NO separate non-semiosic
objects in the universe.
4] 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.
JAS: 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.
EDWINA No- Peirce did not consider that Pure Mind was a reality;
thinking about such is a pure intellectual abstraction. Instead, he
specifically said: 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" 6.490.
5] ET: And - 'the three universes must actually be absolutely
necessary results of a state of utter nothingness'. [6.490]
JAS: 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 [1] in Signs - International Journal of
Semiotics .
EDWINA I have a different interpretation. As Peirce says 'the three
universes must be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter
nothingness.....6.490, which, to me, means that the three
universes/categorical modes are, all three, logical modes of the
functioning of semiosis - and that there is therefore, no
pre-existent idea or requirement for their particular identity or
mode of operation. But- if we consider that the universe is a
semiosic process - then, all three are necessary functions of this
process.
Edwina
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:16 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
