JAS, list You have indeed ‘made your case’ [interpretation] that the 6.490 outline by Peirce is a reductio ad absurdum argument - but I disagree with your interpretation of that section. I think Peirce meant exactly what he wrote about the emergence of the universe from ’nothing’. Peirce, in my view, did not write that this was an ‘absurd’ statement, despite your claim that he did so. [and your use of quotation marks after the word ‘absurd’ - when, this word was NOT in the quotation from Peirce’. '.
I think that you are analyzing Peirce’s argument within a Newtonian mechanical causality, where indeed, in the world-of-discrete objects [ the realm of Secondness], these discrete objects do not ‘come from nothing’. But cosmology isn’t referring to the classical mechanical realm of existent particles but to the quantum world - and Peirce’s cosmological outline [also in 1.412 and 6.214-219] fits in with the modern outline of Black Holes and the ‘Big Bang’. There is no need to describe my argument as ‘uncharitable’. Why say such a thing? Your original argument that ‘God’ was the Dynamic Object’ of the Universe-as-a-Sign [ which you defined as ONLY the Representamen - did change to one where you instead acknowledged that the first correlate was of course, connected to the other two correlates - and - within the universe. That is - you did admit that the Universe was not composed only of the first Correlate [ the Sign/ Representamen] but also - of the other two …This was different from your original assertion that the Universe was only the Representamen - and God was the DO external to the universe. Now you are acknowledging that other correlates - which are connected to the DOs of the universe, function within the universe. [Andn I also don’t agree with a finite universe where a DO functions external to it…] BUT - I reject your assertion that all semiosis proceeds from the Dynamic Object. The information contained in the DO does indeed ‘determine’ the nature of the information processed within the other correlates, BUT, the initiation of the semiosic action is not by the DO - but by the Representamen, as the first correlate. After all- an object or external stimulus doesn’t even become a DO until it is ‘connected’ to that mediatory Repesentamen/Sign. And that is why the Representamen/Sign is defined by Peirce as the First correlate, because, in the semiosic act, that process begins with the Representamen. “A Sign or Representamen is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant” 2.274. And these terms of First, Second, and Third, are NOT references to the categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness [ as some on this list have previously asserted] but are ordinal terms, which refer to the order of the semiosic process. Edwina > On Sep 27, 2024, at 6:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > I made my case for understanding the "perfect cosmology" discussion in CP > 6.490 (1908) to be a reductio ad absurdum in section 4 of my 2018 paper, "A > Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" > (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244), and I will not > reiterate it here. Again, such an interpretation is confirmed by the excerpt > from a largely unpublished manuscript that I provided in my previous post, > especially in conjunction with the Logic Notebook entry that I have quoted > repeatedly in recent threads. They both present Leibnizian cosmological > arguments for the reality of God as Ens necessarium--nothing comes from > nothing, so the only rational explanation for why there is anything at all is > one necessary being (definition of God) who created all contingent beings > (everything else). Here are the key portions of those two passages again. > > CSP: Unless we were to think reason in general futile, which neither you > reader nor I can, we have the problem before us to explain the sum total of > the real, however vaguely. To explain anything is to show it to be a > necessary consequence. To say that the total real is a consequence of utter > nothing without substance or appearance is absurd. The only alternative is to > suppose a necessary something whose mode of being transcends reality. This is > vague enough. 'Necessary being' is the equivalent of 'something,' since > nothing is self-contradictory and impossible. But a necessary being adequate > to account for the sum total of reality, however inscrutable, is not in all > respects entirely vague. (R 288:91[178], 1905; bold added) > > CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows then > plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an antecedent > state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. The task of > Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from a state > of absolute absence of any; and logic requires that this problem [is] to be > solved. But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent state, and > this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of things > whatever, that is, an Ens Necessarium. This Ens necessarium being, then, the > Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator of all that could > ever be observed of Ideas, Occurrences, or Logoi. (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28; > bold added) > > Claiming otherwise implausibly (and uncharitably) ascribes blatant > self-contradiction to Peirce, especially since he wrote the Logic Notebook > entry at almost exactly the same time as CP 6.490. > > I have already acknowledged several times now that the universe being > perfused with first correlates (signs) of triadic relations of mediation > entails that it is also perfused with second correlates (objects) and third > correlates (interpretants) of such relations, but these are also first > correlates (signs) of other triadic relations of mediation with their own > second correlates (objects) and third correlates (interpretants), and so on > in both directions. All semiosis proceeds from the (dynamical) object through > the sign toward the (final) interpretant; hence, the semiosic continuum as a > whole proceeds from God the Creator in the infinite past, through every state > of the universe at a measurable point in time, toward God completely revealed > in the infinite future (see CP 1.362, EP 1:251, 1887-8; note that this is in > the very same manuscript as CP 1.412). > > None of this is theology; it is cosmology, a branch of metaphysics, which > "consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of logical [i.e., > semeiotic] principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of > being. Accordingly, it is to be assumed that the universe has an explanation, > the function of which, like that of every logical explanation, is to unify > its observed variety. It follows that the root of all being is One; and so > far as different subjects have a common character they partake of an > identical being" (CP 1.487, c. 1896). > > 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 26, 2024 at 6:55 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> JAS, List >> >> 1]. You wrote: [informing us that the quotes were from 6.490] >>> This confirms what I have been suggesting for years--Peirce's statement in >>> CP 6.490 (1908) that "the three universes must actually be absolutely >>> necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" is part of a reductio ad >>> absurdum. As he states plainly here, any claim that three-category reality >>> somehow came into being on its own, as "a necessary consequence ... of >>> utter nothing ... is absurd" because "nothing is self-contradictory and >>> impossible." >> Would you please explain why this section is meant, by Peirce, to be a >> reduction ad absurdum? He doesn’t write: …that the ’three category reality >> somehow came into being on its own, as a ’necessary consequence..of utter >> nothing..is absurd”. Where does he state this? >> >> Instead, he clearly states that ’The three universes must actually be >> absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness” >> >> This whole long section [6.490] doesn’t seem to have any hint of ‘absurdum >> in it; but a clearly argued analysis of the emergence of the three >> categories/ universes. >> >> And of course - your next quotation fits right in. With his categorical >> concepts of freedom, reaction and habit: >>> "Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that [initial] >>> state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was >>> boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted. ... I say that >>> nothing necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom" (CP >>> 6.218-219, 1898). >> >> That is - nothing necessarily resulted; ie, the universe is not >> predetermined to be the way it is - because of the reality of Firstness [ >> freedom] - and the reality of habit-taking..which is a process engaged in by >> adaptation and evolution, ie, habits change. >> >> And after all- this argument of the emergence of the universe from ’nothing’ >> and the developing complexity of habits has been argued, by him, before - >> 1.412. ..and also- see all his analysis of Thirdness, as an evolving, >> developing increasing complex mode. >> >> 2] As for the universe as ‘one immense sign’ or “the entire universe…all >> this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of >> signs” [5.448ff]..the strange thing about your interpretation of these >> quotes from Peirce - is that, since you insist that the the term ’sign’ >> refers ONLY to the Representamen - then, this means, as I’ve pointed out >> before, that your claim is that Peirce means that ’the entire universe is >> ONLY the first correlate/is filled with first correlates. And- as you’ve >> told us before, that this means that God is the Dynamic Object. But apart >> from my reading that there is no such thing as an isolate correlate in the >> triadic Sign of O-R-I - what your analysis sets up is that, since the FIRST >> semiosic action rests with the Representamen - then, this puts God as the >> SECOND action!!!! What a strange theology. >> >> 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 [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
