Edwina, List: ET: You are missing my point - which is that Peirce stated, explicitly and frequently, that there is nothing outside of the universe. He's quite explicit. [6.490, 6.214].
On the contrary, Peirce never--not once--*explicitly *stated that there is nothing outside the Universe. I have already mentioned my reading of CP 6.490 (1908) as a *reductio ad absurdum* demonstrating the necessity of *Ens necessarium*. As for the other cited passage ... CSP: The initial condition, before the universe *existed*, was not a state of pure abstract being. On the contrary it was a state of just nothing at all, not even a state of emptiness, for even emptiness is something. If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the whole universe was *non-existent*, and therefore a state of absolute nothing ... We start, then, with nothing, pure zero ... the nothing of not having been born. There is *no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law*. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility--boundless possibility. There is *no compulsion and no law*. It is boundless freedom. So of *potential *being there was in that initial state no lack. (CP 6.214-217; 1898, bold added) *Before *the Universe *existed*, nothing *existed*; but Peirce did not (and I do not) claim that God *exists*, only that God is *real*. *Before *the Universe *existed*, there was *real *possibility and *real *potential, but nothing *actual*, because (again) nothing *existed*. Now consider what Peirce wrote a few years later about this "state of absolute nothing." 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 and no quality, no matter, no consciousness, no space and no time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not *A* supposes the being of *A* in some mode. Utter indetermination. But a symbol alone is indeterminate. Therefore, Nothing, the indeterminate of the absolute beginning, is a symbol. That is the way in which the beginning of things can alone be understood. (EP 2:322; 1904) Again, *before *the Universe *existed*, nothing *existed*; there was only "utter indetermination," which is a *Symbol*--not an individual *Instance *of a Symbol, obviously, but a Symbol as a *general*; primordial 3ns, "the clean blackboard" (CP 6.203; 1898). Even the EP 2 editors noted, "This statement brings to mind Peirce's favorite Evangelist: 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1)" (EP 2:538n19). On the other hand, Peirce *explicitly* stated that God is "in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience," and *explicitly * stated--*four times*--that God is "*not *immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception" (emphasis in original). It is a basic principle of hermeneutics that one always interprets *obscure *passages in light of *clear *passages. Since Peirce *unambiguously *affirmed that God is *real *and *external *to the Universe, we *cannot *properly interpret those other passages as affirming that *nothing *is outside the Universe--especially in the case of CP 6.490, which is contemporaneous with "A Neglected Argument" and its manuscript drafts. ET: You, on the other hand, reject Peirce's view on this ... you reject his outline that there is nothing outside of the Universe ... you reject his outline of the semiosic Sign, where the Object must itself function as a Sign ... No, I reject *your *view on this, and I reject *your *outlines as misinterpretations of Peirce; i.e., I agree that we disagree. ET: I am aware that your theism is deep and personal and I am not interested in intruding on that ... I sincerely appreciate the sentiment, but my professed theism is no more relevant to the discussion than your professed atheism. It is about which interpretation squares best with *all *of the relevant texts, and as always, those reading along can decide for themselves. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:56 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > You are missing my point - which is that Peirce stated, explicitly and > frequently, that there is nothing outside of the universe. He's quite > explicit. [6.490, 6.214]. You, on the other hand, reject Peirce's view on > this and instead, focus on the nature of the Sign, which refers to an > Object outside of itself. You then take as an axiom that 'the Universe is A > Sign - and consider that there IS an 'object' outside of the > universe-as-a-Sign, , which you term as 'God'. > > I consider this a misinterpretation of Peirce. First, I consider that you > reject his outline that there is nothing outside of the Universe. And > second, I consider that you reject his outline of the semiosic Sign, where > the Object must itself function as a Sign. [1.538]. If this Object, in the > semiosic process, must ALSO function as a Sign, then, it is within the > Universe. > > The Universe is an ongoing semiosic process and consists of Signs - which > refer to Signs [which are understood as Objects] but all are within the > Universe. As Peirce says - there is NOTHING outside of the Universe. That > means, of course, that there is no 'transcendence' and no God-reality > outside of the Universe. > > I am aware that your theism is deep and personal and I am not interested > in intruding on that - so, we'll simply have to do our usual which is to > 'agree to disagree'. > > 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 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 .
