Edwina, List:
ET: In addition, I disagree with Jon's basic axiom [and please don't
quibble about whether something is/is not 'an axiom'] that if the Universe
is a Sign, and a Sign requires an External Object, THEN, the External
Object [external to the Universe], is God.
Sorry, I definitely have to quibble about calling *this *an axiom; it is
not, it is a deductive Argumentation--a straightforward syllogism, in
fact--and the *necessary *conclusion is missing.
- Major premiss: Every Sign is determined by an Object other than
itself.
- Minor premiss: The entire Universe is a Sign.
- Conclusion: The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than
itself.
I do then add, "And this we call God," citing various passages where I
interpret Peirce as endorsing such an identification. Are there other
candidates for the (necessarily external) Object of the Universe?
ET: I simply don't see that Peirce has anywhere written that the Universe
has boundaries; i.e., that it exists as itself as differentiated from the
Non-Universe.
Peirce *explicitly *affirmed both premisses above, which entails--unless we
are going to accuse him of logical inconsistency--that he also affirmed the
conclusion, and thus held that there is an Object that is external to,
independent of, and unaffected by the Universe. He also *explicitly *stated
that God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience," and is "
*not *immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole
Creator of every content of them without exception."
ET: In addition, as I also quoted, to Peirce, even the
external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign, and thus, it belongs IN the
Semiosic Universe.
Here is the actual quote from Peirce.
CSP: Every sign stands for an object independent of itself; but it can
only be a sign of that object in so far as that object is itself of the
nature of a sign or thought. For the sign does not affect the object but is
affected by it; so that the object must be able to convey thought, that is,
must be of the nature of thought or of a sign. (CP 1.538; 1903)
>From the first clause, it is incontrovertible that if the entire Universe
as a whole is a Sign, then it must stand for an Object independent of
itself. Again, if not God, what would qualify? *In order to deny that the
entire Universe as a whole is determined by an Object other than itself,
one must deny that the entire Universe as a whole is a Sign at all.* But
Peirce *explicitly *affirmed that the Universe as a whole is a Sign, so
that means disagreeing with Peirce.
>From the rest of the quote, it is equally incontrovertible that the
Universe can only be a Sign of its external Object *in so far as* that
external Object is *of the nature* of a Sign or thought, such that the
external Object must be able to *convey *thought. *Peirce did not say that
"the external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign," but rather that the
Sign represents its external Object only to the extent that the Object is
of the nature of thought;* and he *explicitly *affirmed elsewhere that God
is of that nature, at least "loosely" and analogically ("by similitudes").
ET: I agree with John Sowa's point, that the Universe is quite capable of
self-generation of Signs - and does not require an external-to-itself
Object to function as a semiosic Sign.
On the contrary, according to Peirce, *every *Sign requires an
external-to-itself Object; so if the Universe has no such Object, then
it *cannot
*be a Sign; but according to Peirce, it *is *a Sign, so it *must *have an
external-to-itself Object.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:36 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> JAS, List
>
> I originally quoted that 6.502 section to outline my view that Peirce
> considers that the term of 'God' can be considered as 'Mind' and I continue
> with that interpretation. I don't consider it to be a 'misunderstanding' at
> all. Indeed, when one considers the various outlines of Mind-as-Matter etc
> discussed by Peirce throughout his work, then, it is, to me, a rational
> interpretation.
>
> As I've said - I don't see the functionality of our quoting the SAME
> passages to each other, and each of us claiming a different interpretation
> - with JAS telling me that my interpretation is a 'misunderstanding' -
> while I will only declare that I consider HIS interpretation to be just
> that - HIS interpretation [ie not a 'misunderstanding'.].
>
> In addition, I certainly don't interpret this analogy of the
> Universe-as-Mind with its meaning, as Jon states, that this could mean that
> "the Universe itself is God'. I don't interpret Peirce as saying that! Nor
> do I consider that Peirce is saying that, as Jon writes, that " Likewise,
> "the physico-psychical universe" is not itself God, but rather a Sign of
> God that conveys knowledge of Him" - and I don't see this outlined in 6.502.
>
> In addition, I disagree with Jon's basic axiom [and please don't quibble
> about whether something is/is not 'an axiom'] that if the Universe is a
> Sign, and a Sign requires an External Object, THEN, the External Object
> [external to the Universe], is God. I simply don't see that Peirce has
> anywhere written that the Universe has boundaries; i.e., that it exists as
> itself as differentiated from the Non-Universe. I don't interpret anything
> that Peirce has written as promoting such a view. And therefore, there is
> NO Object external-to-the-Universe. In addition, as I also quoted, to
> Peirce, even the external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign, and thus,
> it belongs IN the Semiosic Universe.
>
> I agree with John Sowa's point, that the Universe is quite capable of
> self-generation of Signs - and does not require an external-to-itself
> Object to function as a semiosic Sign.
>
> 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 .
