Edwina, List: ET: This is what is logically called a circular argument and thus, is invalid.
No, a *circular argument* is one in which the conclusion is already *assumed *in at least one of the premisses. That is certainly not the case here. Instead, the claim appears to be that my Semeiotic Argumentation sets up an *infinite regress*. However, as I already explained, Peirce does not require the external Object of every Sign to *be *a Sign, but rather that the Sign can *only *represent its Object *to the extent* that the latter is *of the nature* of thought. ET: I suggest we allow each other the 'grace' to do this - rather than insisting that one or the other is 'right' - and the other is a 'misinterpretation. That is fine, as long as it goes both ways. What we *cannot *do is attribute something to Peirce that he *did not* actually say, or ignore something that he *explicitly *said; and what we *should not* do is accuse him of self-contradiction, unless it is completely unavoidable. 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 10:47 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > This is what is logically called a circular argument and thus, is invalid. > That is, consider the debate: > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > JFS: But the existence of quasi-minds at the level of bacteria is > sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret itself. > JAS: Sure, but it is not sufficient for the Universe to determine itself; > an external Object is necessary to determine it. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > ET: What JAS is doing, I suggest, is setting up a circular argument, > where he has the Universe as a separate entity, a Sign, in interaction > with an External Object. Now - this External Object MUST, according to > Peirce, also be a Sign...and so...logically, it too must require its own > External Object...which is also a Sign...which also requires its own > External Object...and so on. > ----------------- > My view is that Peirce has at no time set up the Universe as a separate, > bounded entity - i.e., with spatial and/or temporal horizons. Therefore - > there is NO external Object. > > Furthermore, his outline of the necessary function of the > three categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, provides ALL the generative actions > required for the full semiosic functioning of this universe. That is, as > John Sowa points out," the existence of quasi-minds at the level of > bacteria is sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret itself." > > Again, these quasi-minds function within the three categories - nothing > else is needed for the semiosic functioning of the universe. > > And again - all we are doing is quoting the same passages to each other, > and interpreting them in different ways. I suggest we allow each other the > 'grace' to do this - rather than insisting that one or the other is 'right' > - and the other is a 'misinterpretation. > > 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 .
