BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list
I'm not going to get into a set of endless posts where we simply write out the SAME Peircean sections and then, each of us, interpret them in a different manner. You and Jon interpret these sections to conclude that the Universe has horizons, to so speak, both temporally and spatially, and that, 'outside' of these horizons, is the 'reality of God'. I interpret these sections to conclude that the Universe has no horizons and that the 'reality of Mind' is a vital component of this Universe, as expressed within the three modal categories. Jon interprets the Peircean axiom that the Universe is composed of Signs AND the axiom that all Signs require an external Object to mean that the Universe as a Sign requires an external Object, aka, God, external to the Universe. I interpret the axiom that the Universe is composed of Signs and that the external Object to each Sign is itself a Sign - and is within the Universe. These are two different interpretations of the same Peircean sections - and I don't see the point of continuous debate. I think we have to respect that each of us has a 'reasonable interpretation' - different though they are. Edwina On Wed 15/05/19 11:33 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List, Edwina wrote: ET: I agree with John Sowa's suggestion - the universe as a sign of itself. There is NOTHING outside of the universe; Peirce was quite clear on that - repeatedly. [6.490, 6.214.."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" On a number of occasions in the past, you've repeated this notion of the initial condition of "nothing at all" before the Universe existed without referring to Peirce's explanation of what he means by that phrase as he develops it in the paragraphs just following 6.214. There we read that this "is not the nothing of negation," a notion which follows from "the logic of deduction." Rather, Peirce makes cleat that the 'nothing' he is explicating is, rather, "the pure zero of not having been born." "It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. . . absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility." Rather than following the nothing of the logic of deduction ("the nothing of death"), his "germinal nothing" follows an abductive logic, the logic of "potentiality," "So of potential being there was in that initial state no lack." The result is that "nothing in particular necessarily resulted" but that everything in general was possible (on this, see below my discussion of 6.490 which you also referenced). Here are the relevant passages starting with 6.214 with the ideas I've just abstracted above put in boldface: 6.214. . . 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. CP 6.215 . . . We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is 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. CP 6.217 So of potential being there was in that initial state no lack. CP 6.218 Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted. The logic may be that of. . . hypothetic inference. CP 6.219 I say that nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. And so become the somethings of this particular Universe (of which others are possible). Edwina continued: ET: Therefore, for JAS to posit that 'because a sign requires an external object, and the Universe is a 'Sign', THEN, this external Object must 'be God' - contradicts the Peircean axiom that there is nothing outside of the Universe. Let's consider this in consideration of "a perfect cosmology of the three universe" discussed in 6.490. We again begin at a state of 'nility' which Peirce says that we cannot conceive of; however, we can "conceive that there should be a mind that could conceive it" (boldface added). What/whose would that mind be? Peirce then takes up the notion of "super-order" and "super-habit." Every existential being (not every reality) requires a super-order for "to suppose a thing to have any particular character is to suppose a conditional proposition to be true of it, which proposition would express some kind of superorder." On the other hand, a "state in which there should be absolutely no super-order whatsoever would be . . a state of nility." "So in that state there must then have been a tohu bohu of which nothing whatever affirmative or negative was true universally. There must have been, therefore, a little of everything conceivable." And so there must have been "a little undifferentiated tendency to take super-habits. But such a state must tend to increase itself." Again, I put these ideas in boldface in the relevant passages beginning with 6.4590. 6.490 Now imagine, in such vague way as such a thing can be imagined, a perfect cosmology of the three universes. . . . That perfect cosmology must therefore show that the whole history of the three universes, as it has been and is to be, would follow from a premiss which would not suppose them to exist at all. Moreover, such premiss must in actual fact be true. But that premiss must represent a state of things in which the three universes were completely nil. Consequently, whether in time or not, the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness. We cannot ourselves conceive of such a state of nility; but we can easily conceive that there should be a mind that could conceive it, since, after all, no contradiction can be involved in mere non-existence. A state in which there should be absolutely no super-order whatsoever would be such a state of nility. For all Being involves some kind of super-order. For example, to suppose a thing to have any particular character is to suppose a conditional proposition to be true of it, which proposition would express some kind of superorder, as any formulation of a general fact does. To suppose [for example for] it to have elasticity of volume is to suppose that if it were subjected to pressure its volume would diminish until at a certain point the full pressure was attained within and without its periphery. This is a super-order, a law expressible by a differential equation. Any such super-order would be a super-habit. Any general state of things whatsoever would be a super-order and a super-habit. In that state of absolute nility. . . of which nothing whatever affirmative or negative was true universally. There must have been, therefore, a little of everything conceivable. There must have been here and there a little undifferentiated tendency to take super-habits. But such a state must tend to increase itself. For a tendency to act in any way, combined with a tendency to take habits, must increase the tendency to act in that way. Now substitute in this general statement for "tendency to act in any way" a tendency to take habits, and we see that that tendency would grow. It would also become differentiated in various ways. . . CP 6.491 Among the many pertinent considerations which have been crowded out of this article, I may just mention that it could have been shown that the hypothesis of God's Reality is logically not so isolated a conclusion as it may seem. Again, in regard to "the hypothesis of God's Reality," consider that some Mind (not ours) must have been able to conceive niility. This is quite different from your claim that there was no Mind before the Universe came into being and that the "three categorical modes. . .operate as Mind" and further that "Peirce specifically says that the term Mind is an analogy with the term of 'God'." " Where does he say this? You continued: I disagree with JAS's view that there IS 'a reality outside the Universe, aka God'. Instead, I see the Universe as a massive semiosic process, a function of the operation of Mind-as-Matter, increasing in complexity within the operations of the three categorical modes. But both Jon and I have been arguing that the idea that there is "a reality outside the Universe, aka God" is Peirce's. Jon has repeatedly outlined that argument with which I am mainly in agreement. His excellent analysis of Peirce's early cosmology, including the further developments in Peirce's thinking on the matter (including much that follows from the Blackboard analogy in the 1898 Cambridge House Lectures) is offered in "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187 [1] Best, Gary R [2] Virus-free. www.avg.com Links: ------ [1] https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187 [2] http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
----------------------------- 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 .