BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I maintain that Peirce never once maintained that the Universe was
finite or with boundaries and that there was a reality outside of the
universe.
My reading of Peirce is that he maintains that, before 'time', the
Universe did not exist - and then, with the introduction of time, it
exists. But- it is not a bounded existentiality; there is no reality
'outside' of or external to the Universe.
What is 'necessary' to the semiosic functioning of this Universe -
are the three categorical modes, which operate as 'Mind'. Peirce
specifically says that the term of Mind is an analogy with the term
of 'God'.
And, as I've noted, for Peirce, the Object is an integral part of
the semiosic process, and the Universe functions as a semiosic
process. Therefore, the Object can't be viewed as detached from or
external to the Universe.
Edwina
On Wed 15/05/19 9:04 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:56 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
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 .
