BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I agree with all your points - and like your comment " that the
universe is
a sign of itself -- it's a sinsign. " Very nice.
Edwina
On Wed 15/05/19 12:03 PM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
Jon and Edwina,
JAS
> Peirce wrote that "the Universe is a vast representamen", which
> "is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of
signs"
> (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394; 1906).
>
> That sounds to me like "the aggregate formed by a sign and all
> the signs which its occurrence carries with it,"
Neither quotation implies the other.
JAS
> this particular way is my own interpretation, but I consider it
> to be fully consistent with the texts themselves.
To say that A is consistent with B is much weaker than saying that
A is implied by B. You can add all sorts of statements that Peirce
had never intended and still be consistent with what he said.
JAS
> the unavoidable answer to the specific question that I had just
> posed--if the entire Universe is a Sign, then what is its Object?
The clearest and most obvious answer is that the universe is
a sign of itself -- it's a sinsign. That observation ties up
the loose ends. To go further is an unjustified assumption.
ET
> the definition of 'God' is ambiguous and even, missing...
Peirce merely said "ens necessarium and creator of the three
universes".
That definition is consistent with many hypotheses, and there is no
clear reason for choosing any one:
(1) Pantheism, God = Universe. (2) God is transcendent -- outside
of the universe. (3) God is inside (a part of) the universe.
(4) God is ineffable, and wherever or whatever God may be, no sign
can describe God. (5) God does not exist -- as Peirce himself said,
all theories are fallible.
Definitions #1 and #5, by the way, are closely related. When
asked whether he believed in God, Einstein sometimes said no. But
he sometimes replied "I believe in the God of Spinoza." However,
Spinoza equated God with Nature. That is a version of pantheism,
which in those days was considered the equivalent of atheism.
JAS
> It goes without saying that connecting the dots in this particular
> way is my own interpretation, but I consider it to be fully
> consistent with the texts themselves.
But "consistent with" is much weaker than "implied by".
Peirce was a master of "connecting dots" among the theories
of philosophy, science, and engineering of his day. Look at
his classification of the sciences in 1903. I would be very
cautious about making any claims about unconnected dots in
his writings.
In fact, today's society is becoming so badly fragmented that
there is a desperate need for more dot connecting. Instead
of making dubious connections in Peirce's philosophy, a far
more valuable project would be to apply his theories to
connecting the many fragmented dots today.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
