Gary F., List: GF: Jon, you’ve clarified your theological position somewhat (though I don’t think you’ve really owned up to the paradoxicality of it as much as Peirce does with his);
Would you mind clarifying the specific "paradoxicality" that you have in mind? Among the major Christian theological traditions, we Lutherans have a reputation for being perhaps the most comfortable with paradoxes, rather than insisting on always trying to resolve them. GF: But this does nothing to explain how the Universe as Sign manages to get around the semiotic principle that a Sign cannot furnish acquaintance with or recognition of its Object, but can only *represent *something with which we are *already* acquainted and convey *further *information about it ... Knowledge of an Object, no matter how incomplete and analogical, is itself a sign requiring acquaintance with the Object *prior to* any semiotic mediation. And yet we (and many others) have managed to become acquainted with Charles Sanders Peirce, despite being born decades after he died. We have no problem referring to him today as the Object of Signs, and having both transcribed quite a few of his handwritten manuscripts, I suspect that you and I can legitimately say that we have gotten to know him quite well by now. How is that possible? Why would God be any different? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:31 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Jon, you’ve clarified your theological position somewhat (though I don’t > think you’ve really owned up to the paradoxicality of it as much as Peirce > does with his); but I’m disappointed that you haven’t addressed the > semiotic issue that I raised along with the two paragraphs I quoted from > Peirce. You wrote > > JAS: In fact, all of our Collateral Experience with people who lived and > died before we were born, including Peirce himself, is of this nature--we > become *acquainted *with someone through *indirect *experience, *mediated > *by Signs. > > But this does nothing to explain how the Universe as Sign manages to get > around the semiotic principle that a Sign cannot furnish acquaintance > with or recognition of its Object, but can only *represent* something > with which we are *already* acquainted and convey *further* information > about it. > > > > [[ I do not mean by “collateral observation” acquaintance with the system > of signs. What is so gathered is *not* COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary > the prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the sign. But by > collateral observation, I mean previous acquaintance with what the sign > denotes. ] CP 8.179 ] > > Knowledge of an Object, no matter how incomplete and analogical, is itself > a sign requiring acquaintance with the Object *prior to* any semiotic > mediation. If the whole Universe is a Sign, and *only* a Sign, where can > this prior acquaintance come from? “Spontaneous conjectures of > instinctive reason” are just more signs. > > > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
