Jon- I don't think you can move into saying 'If I [Jon] am wrong inthis, then 
Peirce was wrong]. We remain, all of us, readers of Peirce - and thus - 
interpreters. We each read him a different way and I don't think that you have 
the right to self-define yourself as someone who is 'one-with-Peirce'. I think 
that many others have to read Peirce - and - your and my comments - and make up 
their minds as to how 'accurately' we interpret him. 

For example - I consider that EVERYTHING is semiosic - whereas, I'm not sure 
what meaning you assign to the word. For me - all actions within the 
physico-chemical, biological and socioconceptual world are semiosic - and don't 
need human agency to be such. Again, 'matter is effete mind'.

I read 6.455 differently than you do - I don't see that eg the mathematical 
reasoning is in a categorical mode of Firstness. It IS pure ideational - which 
would be, in the ten classes, a pure Argument [symbolic legisign argment 
O-R-I]; that is - ENTIRELY IN THIRDNESS.

 So, i don't equate the three universes to match the three categories. The 
quotation you provide "I said that a thoroughly genuine triad in a mode of 
Firstness (i.e., a qualisign) belongs to the third Universe of Experience, as 
something "whose being consists in active power to establish connections 
between different objects" (CP 6.455). .....I consider that this quote refers 
to Thirdness. And therefore - I don't see that a qualisign - one entirely in a 
mode of Firstness - has any 'active power to establish connections between 
different objects' and therefore, I simply don't see how you can declare that 
it belongs to 'Thirdness'.

With regard to your reading of 1.480- Peirce refers to THREE kinds of 'genuine 
triads'. I read a genuine triad as operational in A quality and in A fact. So- 
1-1-1, a qualisign, is a triad in a total mode of Firstness; it is a 'feeling 
of redness' but it is NOT the same as a thoroughly genuine triad' which 
involves generality or Thirdness. A 2-2-2 or Dicent Sinsign is a triad in a 
total mode of Secondness, eg, a weathervane - but it is not the same as a 
thoroughly genuine triad which involves generality or Thirdness. So,  again, a 
triad in a mode of Firstness does not, in my readings of Peirce, belong in 'the 
Third universe'; there is no generality. Firstness has no capacity to 'make 
connections', to mediate, to connect. That is the nature of Firstness - its 
isolate vividness.
So- we disagree in our readings. 

As for your interpretation of God and Peirce - I maintain that it remains your 
interpretation and that Peirce's view of Mind and creation  - is quite 
different from yours.

Edwina






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


  Edwina, List:


  I try to be careful about only attributing to Peirce, rather than myself, 
those things that strike me as incontrovertibly clear in his writings--things 
that the vast majority of Peirce scholars recognize to be HIS views, as 
expressed in those writings.  I do not subscribe to the approach that all 
interpretations are equally valid; while there can certainly be legitimate 
differences, there are also objectively incorrect readings, assuming (as Gary 
F. once put it) that Peirce said what he meant and meant what he said.  Of 
course, I am (very) fallible, so I may (and probably do) overreach in some 
cases.  I even conceded in my last post, "We might quibble about these 
particular assignments of the labels, which are just off the top of my head."  
The overall point remains--Peirce did not limit the categories to semeiosis, as 
you apparently do.  If you are right to do so, then not only am I wrong about 
this, but Peirce was also wrong about it.


  There seems to be a particular terminological difficulty with the word 
"mode."  I did not say "that a pure or genuine triad in a mode of Firstness 
[O-R-I all in a mode of Firstness] belongs in a mode of representation," I said 
that a thoroughly genuine triad in a mode of Firstness (i.e., a qualisign) 
belongs to the third Universe of Experience, as something "whose being consists 
in active power to establish connections between different objects" (CP 6.455). 
 In some contexts, the categories do correspond to modes, such as 
possible/actual/habitual; but not always.  In any case, what I said is 
perfectly consistent with what Peirce wrote in CP 1.480 (not CP 1.515, as I 
indicated in my response to Jeff)--"a triad if genuine cannot be in the world 
of quality nor in that of fact ... But a thoroughly genuine triad is separated 
entirely from those worlds and exists in the universe of representations."  So 
I am not the only one claiming that "it belongs primarily to the third 
Universe"--Peirce did, as well.  If I am wrong about this, then Peirce was also 
wrong about it.


  Finally, there is nothing to debate with respect to whether Peirce believed 
in the Reality of God as Ens necessarium and Creator of all three Universes of 
Experience--he says so plainly in CP 6.452.  If I am wrong about this, then 
Peirce was also wrong about it.


  Regards,


  Jon


  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

    Jon, you wrote:

     "For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I 
triad--for one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of 
the sciences!"

    PLEASE - do not write as if you alone are the sole interpreter of Peirce. 
Therefore, please write something like: ' In my [Jon Alan Schmidt] 
interpretation, the categories of Peirce do not only function within the O-R-I 
triad...etc etc.

    Do you see the difference? I am always careful to make it clear that what I 
write is MY interpretation of Peirce. I do not write as if I had the direct or 
correct view of  Peirce.

    Now - to your points - 

    1) With regard to genuine - I don't see that a  pure or genuine triad in a 
mode of Firstness [O-R-I all in a mode of Firstness] belongs in a mode of 
representation - and representation suggests Thirdness or the use of some 
symbolic mediation. I simply don't see how you can claim that "it belongs 
primarily to the Third Universe' [by which I am assuming that you mean to 
Thirdness]??

    Jeff has provided a quote: "For while a triad if genuine cannot be in the 
world of quality nor in that of fact, yet it may be a mere law, or regularity, 
of quality or of fact." 1.515***ET - I cannot find this quote at 1.515.

    However ,Peirce does write that 'Secondness is an essential part of 
Thirdness...and Firstness is an essential element of both Secondness and 
Thirdness' 1.530 - which is why I consider that the three categories are a 
complex embedded function.

    2) Therefore I disagree with your aligning various sciences with the 
categories. I don't think that his differentiation of the various sciences etc 
has any real relationship to the categories. The categories, as I read Peirce, 
refer to the phaneron- "the collective total of all that is in any way or in 
any sense present to the mind quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any 
real thing or not" 1.284

    Jon, you wrote: "For sciences of discovery, mathematics as Firstness, 
philosophy as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; "

    I don't see this. Peirce certainly classified the various fields of studies 
- but not within the categories. Mathematics, which refers to 'feelings and 
quality'? Philosophy referring to actual facts?

    But he certainly classified fields of study into 'threes'. - and one can 
see that some of the descriptions of the modal categories can be loosely 
applied  - i.e., abduction does indeed have an element of 'feeling, quality, 
freedom'; and induction does have an element of actual fact; and deduction does 
have an element of necessity. But I think this is a loose description for all 
three are, after all, aspects of reasoning [Thirdness]. 

    3) I don't see that Peirce accepted a pre-existent creator. 
    "Out of the womb of indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come 
something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by 
the principle of habit there would have been a second flash. Thought time would 
not yet have been, this second flash was in some sense after the first, because 
resulting from it" 1.412. 

    Now - this self-organized complexity didn't need a prior 'ens necessarium'. 
I am aware, Jon, of your view of genesis and god, since you have provided your 
supportive quotations from the Bible - which sees god as an agential creator - 
but - I don't see that this Agential Force is accepted by Peirce. Peirce sees 
'Mind' as the agential force - an ongoing, evolving, open force - and a part of 
matter - i.e., not separate from matter- and therefore not prior to time or 
matter. [see his discussion in the Reality of God - 6.489 ....

    Edwina
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
      To: Edwina Taborsky 
      Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L 
      Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


      Edwina, List: 


        ET:  Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations 
between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the 
mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.


      I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I relations 
specifically, but rather to triadic relations in general, since that is what 
Peirce discussed in the quoted paper.  In other words, O-R-I is not the only 
kind of triad, even though it is probably the paradigmatic example of a triad.


      In any case, Peirce stated quite clearly that all genuine triads belong 
to the world of representation, and not to the world of quality or the world of 
fact.  These are undoubtedly what he later called the three Universes of 
Experience--quality corresponds to Ideas, fact to Brute Actuality, and 
representation to Signs.  However, this is not to say that all signs are in the 
mode of Thirdness; i.e., Necessitants.  Even a qualisign, which must be iconic 
and rhematic in its relations to its object and interpretant, and thus is 
classified entirely in the mode of Firstness, belongs primarily to the third 
Universe--its "being consists in active power to establish connections between 
different objects."  However, specifically as a qualisign--a quality that is a 
sign--it also, in some sense, belongs to the first Universe.  Likewise, a 
sinsign belongs to both the third Universe as a sign and the second Universe as 
an existent.  I am still thinking through how all of this works, including how 
the R-O and R-I relations fit into the picture, so I would welcome input from 
others on it.


        ET:  As such the categories only function within the triad - the O-R-I 
triad.


      Perhaps this is our fundamental disagreement, at least when it comes to 
this subject.  For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I 
triad--for one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of 
the sciences!  For sciences of discovery, mathematics as Firstness, philosophy 
as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; for philosophy, phenomenology 
(phaneroscopy) as Firstness, normative sciences as Secondness, and metaphysics 
as Thirdness; for normative sciences, esthetics as Firstness, ethics as 
Secondness, logic (semeiotic) as Thirdness.  Within mathematics, the categories 
manifest as monads, dyads, and triads; within phaneroscopy, as quality, 
reaction, and representation; within metaphysics, as possibility, actuality, 
and necessity (habituality); within logic, as speculative grammar, critic, and 
methodeutic.  We might quibble about these particular assignments of the 
labels, which are just off the top of my head, but the point is that 
restricting the categories to semeiosis is decidedly contrary to Peirce's own 
approach.


        ET:  I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the 
Symbolic Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I 
consider that our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I 
therefore reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or 
universes'.


      No one is suggesting that "pure or genuine Thirdness" is identical to an 
Argument; this thread concerns metaphysics in general, and cosmology in 
particular, rather than semeiotic.  Even if "our universe [now] requires both 
Firstness and Secondness," this does not entail that they were also required 
"before" our actual universe came into being.  While you "reject such a 
pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes," Peirce quite 
explicitly believed in just such a Creator, and I honestly do not see how any 
legitimate reading of "A Neglected Argument" can deny this.


        CSP:  The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), is the 
definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator 
of all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452)


      Regards,


      Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
      Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
      www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


      On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 
wrote:

        Jeffrey, list: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the 
Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; 
all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness. These are only three 
of the ten - and the function of the non-genuine or degenerate modes is, in my 
view, to provide the capacity for evolution, adaptation and change. That is, 
Firstness linked to Secondness and Thirdness, as in the vital, vital triad of 
the Rhematic Indexical Legisign - introduces novelty to actuality to habit. 
That's quite something. 

        My point is that the modal categories have no 'per se' reality [Jon 
considers that both Firstness and Thirdness have such a reality] but are modes 
of organization and experience of matter/concepts within ongoing events, i.e, 
'matter is effete Mind'. As such the categories only function within the triad 
- the O-R-I triad.

        I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the Symbolic 
Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I consider that 
our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I therefore reject such 
a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes'.  That is - 
I'm aware that Jon bases his reading of Peirce also within his belief in 
Genesis and God - but I can't see this same view within the writings of Peirce.

        Edwina


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -----------------------------
  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 
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




-----------------------------
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to