JAS, list We’ve been arguing for years about these issues - what is a ’sign’- which I maintain is the triad, and which you maintain is only the first correlate; the origins of the universe - which I maintain is from ’nothing’ and which you maintain is via God; the nature of the Dynamic Object..and so on., etc’.
The resuit? You have YOUR interpretation of Peirce and I have MY interpretation of Peirce. I think we’ll have to leave it at that. Edwina > On Sep 20, 2024, at 12:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > List: > > I am not "now admitting" anything that I have not already acknowledged many > times before. In fact, the first two paragraphs of my post below are copied > almost word-for-word from one of my posts last week > (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00057.html). > > If the sign, object, and interpretant were not distinct correlates, then they > could not be in a genuine triadic relation with each other. Where we should > be able to agree is that something is not a sign unless it stands in the > genuine triadic relation of mediating between an object an interpretant, > something is not an object unless it determines a sign relatively to an > interpretant, and something is not an interpretant unless it is determined by > a sign in reference to an object (see Robert Marty's definition #40f, > https://cspeirce.com/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm). Again, when Peirce says > that the universe is "perfused with signs," he means precisely that it is > perfused with first correlates of triadic relations (signs) that are > mediating between second correlates (objects) and third correlates > (interpretants). This indeed entails that the universe is also perfused with > objects and interpretants, but those are also signs with their own objects > and interpretants, and so on in both directions because all such individual > signs/objects/interpretants are artifacts of analysis prescinded from the > continuous process of semiosis. > > That the entire universe is one immense sign is not just my claim, it is also > Peirce's explicit claim. "[T]he Universe is a vast representamen, a great > symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now > every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions > and its Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these > qualities play in an argument, that they of course play in the Universe, that > Universe being precisely an argument" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903). The > universe is one sign (a symbol, an argument, 3ns) that involves many signs > (indices and icons, propositions and names, 2ns and 1ns) because "if any > signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one > sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2], 1904). It is "the aggregate formed by a sign and all > the signs which its occurrence carries with it. This aggregate will itself be > a sign; and we may call it a perfect sign, in the sense that it involves the > present existence of no other sign except such as are ingredients of itself" > (EP 2:545n25, 1906). As I have explained previously > (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00038.html), the > interpretant of any argument is its conclusion, so the dynamical > interpretants of the universe are the living realities that it is constantly > working out--every actual event is a dynamical interpretant of the entire > universe prior to the moment when it occurs. > > I have never suggested that Peirce refers to a necessary being in his earlier > cosmological writings including CP 1.412 (1887-8) and CP 6.185-209&214-221 > (1898), although he does state in the latter, "Those who express the idea to > themselves by saying that the Divine Creator determined so and so may be > incautiously clothing the idea in a garb that is open to criticism, but it > is, after all, substantially the only philosophical answer to the problem" > (CP 6.199). I simply maintain that those passages can and should be > interpreted in light of his 1908 writings that repeatedly refer to God as Ens > necessarium including "A Neglected Argument" (CP 6.452-491, EP 2:434-450), > its manuscript drafts (R 841-844), the Logic Notebook entries of August 28-29 > (R 339:[293r-296r]), and R 611 (dated October 28). Again, Peirce > unambiguously asserts that logic requires the reality of God as Ens > necessarium in the state of things logically antecedent to the co-reality of > the three universes, in which there were no phenomena whatsoever. The only > alternative is that "the three universes must actually be absolutely > necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" (CP 6.490), which is > obviously absurd. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 6:21 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com > <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> JAS, List >> >> And I have pointed out to you - and ’this’ is ‘one more time’- that Peirce >> could not have meant that the universe is perfused with only the first >> correlate - since the correlates cannot be separated, except intellectually. >> The universe is hardly merely an action-of-mediation. See 5.436 where >> Peirce says that Thirdness ‘does not constitute reality’. And Peirce >> continues ‘by [a] vigorous denial that the third category…suffices to make >> the world” 5.436. >> >> The other two correlates are vital parts of the universe. You are now >> admitting this. So, indeed, it’s a triadic universe - made up of O-R-I. As >> Peirce points out, “Signs, the only things with which a human being can, >> without derogation, consent to have any transaction, being a sign himself, >> are triadic” 6.344 >> >> Your other claim that the universe is some kind of ‘whole unit’, and only >> the first correlate, is without any evidence [ other than your own >> persuasion] and you don’t explain what the Dynamic Interpretant would >> consist of - since it would presumably also have to be external to the >> universe. [None of this is found in Peirce ]. . >> >> And Peirce wrote, numerous times, in his analysis of the emergence of the >> universe and the three categories, that they emerged - from nothing. He was >> not using a Newtonian mechanical analysis - which indeed would reject >> ’something-from-nothing’. Peirce’s examination of ’nothing’ sees it as ’not >> the nothing of negation’ but of ’nothing at all’.. a state of absolute >> nothing’ 6.215….’the nothing of not having been born’…the germinal >> nothing’..’boundless nothing’ 6.217-8. He doesn’t refer to a ’necessary >> being’. >> >> Edwina >>> On Sep 19, 2024, at 6:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> List: >>> >>> I will point out one more time that in the 76 definitions complied by >>> Robert Marty, Peirce never says that a sign is a triadic relation; instead, >>> he repeatedly says that a sign is in a triadic relation. A sign is that >>> which mediates between its object and its interpretant, not the triadic >>> relation of mediating itself. >>> >>> Accordingly, when Peirce says that the universe is "perfused with signs," >>> he means precisely that it is perfused with first correlates of triadic >>> relations. However, each of those signs must indeed have its corresponding >>> object and interpretant--the other two correlates, between which it >>> mediates--and within the universe, both of these are also signs with their >>> own objects and interpretants, and so on. Again, in my view, all these >>> individual signs/objects/interpretants are artifacts of analysis prescinded >>> from the real and continuous process of semiosis. >>> >>> Nothing comes from nothing--Peirce's Logic Notebook entry of 1908 Aug 28 is >>> unambiguous in asserting the logical requirement for the reality of a >>> necessary being in the state of things logically antecedent to the >>> co-reality of the three universes, in which there were no phenomena >>> whatsoever, to be the author and creator of every phenomenon whatsoever. >>> >>> 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> >>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:41 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> JAS, Gary R, list >>>> >>>> I will comment only on the last paragraph of this post by JAS. I feel it >>>> makes several assumptions which are not, in my interpretation, grounded >>>> in the Peircean analytic framework. >>>> >>>> 1] “all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed >>>> exclusively of signs" 6.5448ff emphasis added. I think the error here is >>>> to assume that Peirce meant by this - that the universe is composed >>>> ‘exclusively of Representamens’, ie, the first correlate in the semiosic >>>> triad. This is logically impossible, since the semiosic triad is >>>> irreducible - and we cannot conclude therefore, that the universe is >>>> composed exclusively of ONLY the singular first correlate. >>>> >>>> In addition, it would also mean that the Representamen could NOT be in a >>>> mode of Thirdness, since this mode, as a generality, cannot ‘exist’ on >>>> its own. We see from the ten classes, that six of the ten, are in a mode >>>> of Thirdness. See also 5.436, where Peirce is quite specific that "the >>>> third category - the category of thought, representation, triadic >>>> relation, mediation, genuine thirdness, thirdness as such - does not by >>>> itself constitute reality ...…can have no concrete being without action”. >>>> >>>> By the above - I understand that Thirdness…which he also sees as >>>> ‘representation, triadic relation’ - can’t ‘fill the universe’ ; it does >>>> not, on its own, ‘constitute reality’; it requires a connection to its >>>> other correlates. >>>> >>>> In addition, the term of ‘correlate means, by definition, interactive; it >>>> cannot exist alone. >>>> >>>> Given this error - [ of denying that Peirce meant the full triad with his >>>> use of ’signs] - one therefore must indeed search for a Dynamic Object [as >>>> well as a Dynamic Interpretant!!] - and the notion of ‘God’ is suggested. >>>> >>>> 2] But Peirce’s several outlines of the origin of the universe [1.412, >>>> 6.214-19] are quite clear - “the initial condition …was a state of just >>>> nothing at all”..the germinal nothing”. >>>> >>>> I don’t see where the concept of a Dynamic Object could emerge in this >>>> situation…Indeed, the concept of a DO could only emerge with the emergence >>>> of semiosis, which itself, could only emerge with the emergence of the >>>> three categories/universes - as outlined in 1.412. ..which then set up the >>>> existence of matter, and habits..both of which would enable interactions >>>> within semiosis and the functioning of a Dynamic Object. >>>> >>>> 3] This would thus bring us to a different definition of the term of God - >>>> which would not put that force outside of the Universe, would not have the >>>> universe itself consisting only of Representamens; but would instead, view >>>> the agential force of the functioning of the Universe as Mind - the force >>>> within the universe developing habits of organization of discrete matter >>>> as well as enabling chance deviations. This is my reading of Perice - and >>>> I’m aware that others do not share this interpretation but have their own >>>> interpretations. >>>> >>>> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
