Edwina, List: I would reply to each of your points below, but I have already done so throughout this thread--in most cases, multiple times--and frankly have grown tired of repeating myself. I certainly do not expect you to *accept *my responses; but to continue pretending that I have not patiently, politely, and thoroughly *addressed *your objections is disingenuous at best.
Moreover, your recurring and tiresome complaint about supposedly being called "unPeircean" rings hollow, since there is not a single instance of such a transgression in any of the dozens of messages and thousands of words that I have posted in recent days and weeks. What I *have *said is that anyone who *denies *that the entire Universe is a Sign--or, for that matter, anyone who *denies *the Reality of God as creator of the three Universes of Experience--thereby *disagrees *with Peirce. Honestly considering him to be *wrong *in each case is one thing; claiming that these were *not his views* is another, and in my opinion indefensible, because he *explicitly *and *repeatedly *affirmed them. As always, I ultimately leave it to those reading along to decide for themselves who is more accurately presenting and interpreting the texts. Thank you for once again helping me to sharpen my thinking about these matters. Cheers, 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 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS - again, you provide no evidence, despite my constant requests for you > to do so, that for Peirce, the Universe has boundaries - and that a > 'force' [an Object] is outside of this Universe. > > Second - And you provide no argument for the FACT that this 'external > Object' MUST also be a Sign and thus, must also have its own 'External > Object'. What is the 'External Object' of God? You ignore this fact. > > THird - Just because you conclude that 'God' is not immanent does NOT mean > that God is external. Furthermore, Peirce's outline of immanent is not what > we are talking about when we speak of the dynamics of semiosis [the three > categories] - which are necessarily immanent within the semiosic process of > the Universe. > > Fourth - you are ignoring that Peirce said that the Universe is 'composed > exclusively of signs' - which is NOT the same as your saying that the > Universe IS a Sign. You may insist that this is what Peirce is saying, but > my reading of Peirce is that he was saying that the Universe is a > continuous semiosic process...producing multiple signs. > > Fifth- the Representamen is a mediative process of semiosis; it is not the > full triadic Sign - To say that the Universe is 'a vast representamen, a > great symbol of God's purpose', is a metaphor forthe synechism of ongoing > semiosis, and Peirce was quite specific that there is no specific purpose > to the Universe- other than increasing complexity. That is, there is no > 'God's purpose' [6.507 and 508 "We cannot so much as frame any notion of > what the phrase 'the performance of God's mind means" ] and as Peirce wrote > about such qualities as 'omniscience, omnipotence, ...'We can only wildly > gabble about such things' [6.509] > > Therefore in contradiction to your claim about me - that I am 'unPeircean' > - I consider that my interpretation of Peirce's writings has as much > validity as yours - and I will not claim that either one of us is 'RIGHT' - > only, at the moment, that we each interpret the works very differently. > > 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 .
