List: The absurdity of the three universes being "absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" is *implicit* in CP 6.490, which is from a draft of the additament to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." After all, Peirce's expressed purpose in that passage is to give "some hints" about "the pragmaticistic definition of *Ens necessarium*," which he has already asserted to be "in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" in the very first sentence of the article itself.
However, the absurdity is *explicit *in R 288, and I even bolded the key portions in my last post. "To say that the total real is a consequence of utter nothing without substance or appearance is absurd ... since nothing is self-contradictory and impossible." Both here and in the Logic Notebook entry that I also quoted--again, written at *almost exactly* the same time as CP 6.490--Peirce is plainly talking about the logical requirement for *Ens necessarium* as a rational explanation for the co-reality *all three* universes, not just the second universe of occurrences, things, and facts; "the *total *real," not just the existent. As for CP 1.412 (1887-8), I keep pointing out that Peirce refers to "God the Creator" earlier in the same manuscript (CP 1.362), so he is obviously *not *outlining a godless cosmology in that text. In CP 6.214-219 (1898), he *unambiguously *states that "nothing in particular necessarily resulted" from the initial state of "nothing, pure zero," and then reiterates that "nothing *necessarily *resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom." He also says in the same series of lectures, "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, 1898). Note that he calls it a *philosophical *answer, not a *theological * answer. I have *always *acknowledged that every sign *stands in* a genuine triadic relation with its (dynamical) object and its (final) interpretant. It seems that my recent attempts at further *clarification *of the implications of this *within *the universe, conceived as a vast semiosic continuum, have been successful--but incorrectly perceived as a *change *in my position. Moreover, the entire universe as *one* immense sign still requires an *overall *dynamical object that is external to it, independent of it, and unaffected by it. As I have said before, this does not in any way entail that the universe is *finite* or has "boundaries," only that its dynamical object must *transcend *it. When Peirce refers to the sign/object/interpretant as First/Second/Third (CP 2.274, EP 2:272-273, 1903), these are *not *ordinal terms, they are the results of phaneroscopic analysis. He spells this out when describing them as the First/Second/Third Correlates of a triadic relation (CP 2.235-242, EP 2:290, 1903). - "The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature" - there is only the genuine sign. - "The Second Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of middling complexity" - each sign has both genuine (dynamical) and degenerate (immediate) objects. - "The Third Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the most complex nature" - each sign has genuine (final), degenerate (dynamical), and doubly degenerate (immediate) interpretants. However, the logical *sequence *of semiosis is from the object through the sign toward the interpretant; the object determines the sign to determine the interpretant. "The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign" (EP 2:410, 1907). "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. On the other hand, in its relation to the Interpretant the Sign is *active*, determining the Interpretant without being itself thereby affected" (EP 2:544n22, 1906). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 6:11 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
