List: My personal religious beliefs play no role whatsoever in my analysis of Peirce's writings about metaphysics and cosmology, except as motivation to study them since he consistently affirms the reality of God. I almost always provide exact quotations so that anyone reading along can evaluate for themselves whether I am offering accurate summaries and plausible interpretations, especially when considering multiple passages. Once more, we have reached the point where I am content to leave it at that.
The sign does not *initiate *the semiosic process, which is continuous and ongoing. In fact, there are no *individual *signs, objects, or interpretants apart from our *analysis *of that continuous and ongoing semiosic process. Moreover, the sign does not *interact *with its object; again, "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). I suppose that I will have to leave it at that, as well. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 8:50 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS< List > > I think this should be my last post in this debate [ which is not a > discussion but a debate] - since I consider that JAS’s personal religious > beliefs play such a large role in his analysis of Peirce - that any > discussion becomes difficult. > > I have only one comment on the paragraph offered by JAS: > > 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. > > It is NOT ‘obvious that Peirce is NOT offering a ‘godless cosmology’. That > was an example of process. I accept his explanation that nothing > *necessarily* resulted from the original Nothing - because of the > existence of the Three Categories, with the first one being CHANCE!! And > the third one, Thirdness, functioning as a growing, adaptive changing > mode!!! These two modes rule out necessity. > > As for the Divine creator determining…that is both a theological and > philosophical answer [ akin to a belief by authority and tenacity - but is > not a scientific answer. > > And again - I think one has to understand the semiotic process - which has > nothing as a process to do with the modal complexity of the correlates but > with the actual interaction of X with Y, so to speak. Ie, of one triad with > another triad; of one Representamen/Sign with another Represetnamen/Sign. > > The process could not *begin* with the Dynamic Object [ what is it doing? > Calling out to the world: Notice me! Notice Me!]. indeed, the external > objects do not become a Dynamic Object UNTIL and UNLESS they are in > interaction with a Sign/Representamen! Again - see his outline of his > looking outside to check the weather. Before that connection, the weather > objects are simply…objects ..and Peirce explained several times that these > are ‘independent of our thought’. > > But once the Sign/Represetnamen within the sign vehicle* connects* to the > external object, that object becomes a Dynamic Object, producing > information/data..which the Sign/Representamen processes and moves on as an > Interpretant. > > I don’t think that there is much more to be said on this topic. It > becomes, eventually, reduced to ’tenacious beliefs’ - and without any > possibility of discussion. > > 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.
