List: I could offer another lengthy rebuttal, but instead I will again simply invite anyone interested in my interpretation of Peirce's views on these matters to read my online paper <https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187>, as well as my previous posts in this thread.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:33 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > See my responses below: > > On Tue 14/05/19 6:10 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > 1} ET: A problem that I have with the argument of JAS is that the > definition of the term of 'God' is ambiguous and even, missing. > > JAS: In this context, I am quite obviously employing Peirce's own > straightforward definition of God as "the definable proper name, > signifying Ens necessarium: in my belief Really creator of all three > Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908). > > EDWINA That is not a definition but an assertion - yet to be defined and > argued. > > 2] ET: ... I disagree with JAS's claim that 'if the entire universe is a > Sign, then what is its Object' - I presume that by 'Object', he refers to > 'God'. > > JAS: It was not a claim, but a question, to which I then suggested an > answer. Peirce affirmed that the entire Universe is a Sign, and that every > Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. The conclusion that > necessarily > follows is that the entire Universe is determined by an Object other than > itself. My question was, what is that Object? It clearly cannot be > anything within the Universe, so it must be something that transcends the > Universe. Peirce's definition of God, as quoted above, fits the bill; > especially when we also take into account his emphatic denials, in four > different manuscript drafts, that God is anything "immanent in" Nature or > the three Universes. > > EDWINA I disagree with your conclusion that 'necessarily follows' "is > that the entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself". As > Peirce said - the 'whole universe is a Sign' - and where does he argue that > there is anything OUTSIDE of the universe? Furthermore, although every Sign > is determined by an Object other than itself - this 'Object' is itself a > Sign. There are no 'free and non-semiotic objects' within the universe. > > Peirce's definition of God is not as a 'necessity' - which is not a > definition of God's attributes, but is comparable to 'that analogue of > mind' 6.502]. And furthermore, he outlines this 'mind' not as an external > object to the semiosic universe, and not as 'the creator of the universe' > but as a force NOW creating the universe' - 6.505, which puts that > force-of-God firmly WITHIN the universe and thus, firmly within the > semiosic process. As Peirce says "we must regard Creative Activity as an > inseparable attribute of God' 6.506. Again, I understand that this puts the > 'force-of-God within the semiosic universe. > > 3. JAS: Of course, anyone is free to deny that the entire Universe is > determined by an Object other than itself. This just logically requires also > denying either that the Universe is a Sign or that every Sign is > determined by an Object other than itself (or both), and thereby deviating > from Peirce's own explicitly stated views. > > EDWINA No - I disagree with your view of semiosis. Semiosis is an ongoing > interactional process - which includes the external Object. This external > Object to a Sign does not determine the Sign in a linear fashion [unless we > are talking about a mechanical interaction] but interactively informs and > is informed by the Sign - to produce another Object/Sign. That external > Object is itself functioning within the semiosic process. There are NO > separate non-semiosic objects in the universe. > > 4] ET: "A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, > since all that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and > every previous time" 6.490. But Peirce further explains pure mind "as > creative of thought, must, so far as it is manifested in time, appear as > having a character related to the habit-taking capacity". And that means - > within time. > > JAS: Pure mind is not itself within time--that would be a > self-contradiction, since Peirce had just said (as quoted) that pure mind > has its being out of time--but it is manifested in time, which is not the > same thing. > > EDWINA No- Peirce did not consider that Pure Mind was a reality; thinking > about such is a pure intellectual abstraction. Instead, he specifically > said: Pure mind, as creative of thought, must, so far as it is manifested > in time, appear as having a character related to the habit-taking capacity" > 6.490. > > 5] ET: And - 'the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary > results of a state of utter nothingness'. [6.490] > > JAS: I interpret this as part of a reductio ad absurdum, which > demonstrates that without necessary being (Ens necessarium), there would > be no being at all. The only absolutely necessary result of a state of > utter nothingness is ... utter nothingness. For the long version, see my > online paper <https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187> in Signs - > International Journal of Semiotics . > > EDWINA I have a different interpretation. As Peirce says 'the three > universes must be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter > nothingness.....6.490, which, to me, means that the three > universes/categorical modes are, all three, logical modes of the > functioning of semiosis - and that there is therefore, no pre-existent idea > or requirement for their particular identity or mode of operation. But- if > we consider that the universe is a semiosic process - then, all three are > necessary functions of this process. > > Edwina > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:16 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> JAS, List >> >> A problem that I have with the argument of JAS is that the definition of >> the term of 'God' is ambiguous and even, missing.. I know that JAS as a >> theist probably has a specific definition in his mind when he writes the >> term. I, as an atheist, have a different definition - and prefer the >> analogy that Peirce used, which is 'Mind'. >> >> What is Mind? It is certainly not an Object - that is, I disagree with >> JAS's claim that 'if the entire universe is a Sign, then what is its >> Object' - I presume that by 'Object', he refers to 'God'. To my >> understanding of the Peircean semiosis, Mind is the rationalization of >> energy into matter - and, as such, Mind cannot exist 'per se' outside of >> Matter. That is, the entire universe as a semiosic process, has no Dynamic >> Object; it generates its own DOs in the semiosic process. >> >> "A disembodied spirit, or pure mind, has its being out of time, since all >> that it is destined to think is fully in its being at any and every >> previous time" 6.490. But Peirce further explains pure mind "as creative of >> thought, must, so far as it is manifested in time, appear as having a >> character related to the habit-taking capacity". And that means - within >> time. >> >> And - 'the three universes must actually be absolutely necessary results >> of a state of utter nothingness'. This state of 'utter nothingness' is NOT >> an object and is not Mind. Mind emerges with Matter, within the functions >> of the three universes/ categorical modes. >> >> Therefore, my definition of the term of 'God' is quite different, I >> suspect, from that of JAS - and I am not convinced that the JAS definition >> - which is not clear - aligns with the Peircean definition. >> >> Edwina Taborsky >> >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
