Or perhaps better stated: the antecedent implies the subsequent but the subsequent need not imply, or affect, the antecedent. A definition I've lifted from Peirce but which, on the face of it, would seem to correspond with JAS's overall point (the antecedent considered as a kind of monadic possibility engenders subsequent states which subsequent states cannot necessarily alter the antecedent conditions from which they emerge even if said conditions, or traces of them, remain present in the current state, defined as "subsequent to" that which necessarily precedes them).
________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 2:45 PM To: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>; Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>; tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: An Argumentation for the Reality of God Jon, Gary, Edwina, List, I'm uncertain as to the argument - haven't really considered it fully - but this point does seem rather important insofar as if it isn't correct, it must nonetheless be addressed. JAS: 7. Hence, if the entire universe constitutes one sign, then it is determined by an object that is external to the universe, independent of the universe, and unaffected by the universe. If we accept as provisional the thesis of the "big bang", then surely a universe determined by an object which is external to it (the big bang implies both existence and coming into existence, or prior to existence) is already implied within this thesis? Not necessarily Peircean but isn't it also possible, or certain, that the physics we know today were not those which existed in the immediate aftermath of the big bang (and prior to it, no one has any idea). I ask because surely semeiotic and phenomenology can only be logically accurate with reference to a particular mode of existence/experience which most would concede is either determined a priori by physical (physics) conditions or else is commensurate with those conditions? best Jack ________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 2:19 PM To: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>; Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PEIRCE-L] An Argumentation for the Reality of God *Warning* This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Gary R, list I profoundly disagree with JAS's outline for 'the Reality of God' and consider that it has deep logical and textual errors, but, I had already decided that I would not make any comments on his outline. Then - your quite astonishing declaration that people who might oppose or critique his outline can be defined as doing so, not out of intellectual concerns, but out of emotional need, and can be compared to 'anti-vaxxers' who are defined by the majority as problematic to society's well-being...that's quite the assertion! You posted your criticism of people-who-criticize on this list to the list, and therefore, I think that my objection to such a description should also be public. I should also note that for some odd reason - the List was silent about Robert Marty's critique of Bellucci. And also, had nothing to say about De Tienne's Finale. Edwina On Fri 24/09/21 12:38 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: Jon, List, I'm still vacationing in New Mexico, but have decided to break my pre-determined 'rule' to only read, but not post, messages to Peirce-L while away. This is because I want to say that, in my humble opinion, your outline of an argumentation for the reality of God (which I agree is consistent with Peirce's arguments to the same effect) is logically (semeiotically) brilliant and, perhaps more importantly, metaphysically profound from the standpoint of Peirce's own religious metaphysics. There will, of course, be those on the List who, for various 'reasons', dismiss it out of hand. They will hardly -- if at all -- even begin to reflect on it before their fingers start typing out an incensed retort. Of late I'm beginning to imagine that at least some of those who pooh-pooh such solid reasoning as you've frequently offered in this forum (and, bracketing for a moment, the eternally, I suspect, more than problematic subject of your outline) may suffer from the intellectual snarl some psychologists call "motivated cognition." Here's a friend's brief description in an email concerning the condition in consideration of the problem of anti-covid-vaxers in the USA. These contra-common-sense beliefs are based on what the psychologists call “motivated cognition” or “hot cognition,” i.e. their real function is to serve some emotional need (such as career validation), and their reasoning is just rationalization cobbled together from confirmation bias and various other tricks humans use to fool themselves. So there’s no reasoning with them, all that does is raise the temperature of the conversation. Well, that most likely overstates the 'issue' on Peirce-L, while my even writing that there may be expressions of such a condition here is sure to "raise the temperature of the conversation" so that I'm quite certain to be blasted for even suggesting -- and you will note, as List Moderator -- that the phenomenon may exist here at least to some extent. Also, there are those who do not know or will not acknowledge the history of your and my on-List (and, admittedly, even more frequently, off-List) philosophical disagreements. It has even been suggested, on- and off-List, that I from time to time strongly agree with one of your posts (now this is bizarre) because I'm under some Svengali-like intellectual control you have over me -- rather than what is the truth of the matter -- that while from time to time I do disagree with your reasoning, I more often find your thinking strong and persuasive, and in regard to matters of Peirce's own thinking, most often solidly supported by quoting what he actually said (as John Sowa recently suggested that we all do; I completely agree). Well, I hope that this digression regarding conduct on the List hasn't diluted the principal purpose of the message expressed at the top of it. I know for a fact that you much prefer responses honestly critical of your thinking because, as you've written on- and off-List, your experience is that such sincere criticism tends to sharpen it. I've seen this 'effect' in your "Additament" paper, for example, and expressed in your sincerely thanking Edwina there for the lengthy discussion you had with her on the List which, apparently, provided a kind of whetstone to your own thinking on that subject. Would that all members of this forum begin to see that that is the kind of discussion which could benefit us all. So, while I am quite aware that you have little to no interest in anyone praising your work on the List or promoting your recently published Peircean papers, I find myself incapable of not saying from time to time, "Good work, Jon!" May we all have minds that are open even as we are honestly critical of the reasoning of a person and not the person himself. What is needed here is genuine critical and creative criticism. So, let's hope -- and even expect -- that your "outline of an argumentation for the reality of God that is consistent with Peirce's argument in the article, as well as other passages in his late writings" will receive some good honest criticism (not debate; as John Sowa recently suggested, which is surely not what this forum is about). I would prefer that those who disagree with those views I've expressed as List Moderator first discuss their disagreement with me off List as suggested by Joe Ransdell on the Peirce-L page of Arisbe. Better that we first discuss the substance of Jon's outline. Best, Gary Richmond (writing, in part, as List Moderator) “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 6:44 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: List: In "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" (1908), Peirce defines "Musement" as "considering some wonder in one of the Universes, or some connection between two of the three, with speculation concerning its cause" (CP 6.458, EP 2:436). He later adds that "the consideration of the homogeneities and connections between two different Universes, or all three," leads to "certain lines of reflection which will inevitably suggest the hypothesis of God's Reality" (CP 6.465, EP 2:439). He also states, "The third Universe comprises everything whose being consists in active power to establish connections between different objects, especially between objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is essentially a Sign" (CP 6.455, EP 2:435). Accordingly, I propose the following outline of an argumentation for the reality of God that is consistent with Peirce's argument in the article, as well as other passages in his late writings. 1. The surprising fact, the universe is intelligible, is observed. 2. If it is a "fact that the entire universe,--not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which we are all accustomed to refer to as 'the truth,'--that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906), then its intelligibility would be a matter of course. "The third element of the phenomenon is that we perceive it to be intelligible, that is, to be subject to law, or capable of being represented by a general sign or Symbol. But I say the same element is in all signs. The essential thing is that it is capable of being represented. Whatever is capable of being represented is itself of a representative nature" (CP 8.268, 1903). 3. Hence, we have reason to suspect that the entire universe is composed exclusively of signs. 4. "There is a science of semeiotics whose results no more afford room for differences of opinion than do those of mathematics, and one of its theorems ... is that if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2], 1904). 5. Hence, if the entire universe is composed exclusively of signs, then the entire universe constitutes one sign, i.e., "the Universe is a vast representamen" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). 6. Every sign is determined by an object that is external to the sign, independent of the sign, and unaffected by the sign. "The object is something external to and independent of the sign which determines in the sign an element corresponding to itself" (R 145:28, 1905). "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive; that is to say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect upon the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected" (EP 2:544n22, 1906). 7. Hence, if the entire universe constitutes one sign, then it is determined by an object that is external to the universe, independent of the universe, and unaffected by the universe. 8. This transcendent and impassible object is what we call God--"the definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium: in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434). "But I had better add that I do not mean by God a being merely 'immanent in Nature,' but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever" (R 843:26, 1908). In summary, the hypothesis of God's reality explains the semiosic nature of the entire universe, which in turn explains its intelligibility. Peirce's Neglected Argument is thus cosmological, rather than ontological as some scholars have mistakenly characterized it. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
