Jon, List,
is there a proof, that " logical antedescent" must mean temporal antedescent? Only then your conclusion at the end of your post is correct. The start is a boundary condition, and looking at them always helps to judge hypotheses. If at the beginning there was no universe, only God, then at this starting point classical theism fits. But what if there never was nothing? Then God is not the temporal creator, but still the logical creator. But never without something, immanent or not- but not immanent would mean more logical problems, than immanent. Even in the bible a temporal state of nothingness is not mentioned, just "vast and empty", of which some say, that that is a mistranslation of "Tohuvabohu", which rather would mean chaos. I guess, chaos can be understood for a logical starting point boundary condition for evolution. To see it as a termporal starting point too, might be just a human attempt of reverse engineering due to experience. People migrate to a place, where stones ly randomly around, and build a house with them. I only want to say, that we should not use premisses, which we cannot prove, for refuting anything. Even if the big bang would be proved, there couldn´t be a proof, that it came out of nothing.
Best regards, Helmut
20. September 2024 um 18:59 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
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> wrote:
JAS, ListAnd 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” 6.344Your 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’.EdwinaOn Sep 19, 2024, at 6:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:41 PM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:JAS, Gary R, listI 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.
