BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I agree with John Sowa's suggestion - the universe as a sign of
itself. There is NOTHING outside of the universe; Peirce was quite
clear on that - repeatedly. [6.490, 6.214.."The initial condition,
before the universe existed, was not a state of pure abstract being.
On the contrary it was a state of just nothing at all, not even a
state of emptiness, for even emptiness is something"
Therefore, for JAS to posit that 'because a sign requires an
external object, and the Universe is a 'Sign', THEN, this external
Object must 'be God' - contradicts the Peircean axiom that there is
nothing outside of the Universe.
Furthermore, the Sign, that triad, certainly does require an
external Object, but, why can't that external Object be within the
semiosic Universe, i.e., part of the semiosic process? That is, any
particular triadic Sign A is interactive with another triadic Sign B
-IN the universe. that 'other triadic Sign'B' is an Object to A.
Again - according to Peirce, there is nothing outside of the
Universe. Therefore, I disagree with JAS's view that there IS 'a
reality outside the Universe, aka God'. Instead, I see the Universe
as a massive semiosic process, a function of the operation of
Mind-as-Matter, increasing in complexity within the operations of the
three categorical modes.
As Peirce notes, "Every sign stands for an object independent of
itself; but it can only be a sign of that object in so far as that
object is itself of the nature of sign or thought. For the sign does
not affect the object but is affected by it; so that the object must
be able to convey thought, that is, must be of the nature of a
thought or of a sign" 1.538. My interpretation of this is that the
OBJECT of a SIGN is 'itself a sign or thought. This means - to me -
that it is part of the whole semiosic process. It is not outside; it
is not transcendent. Therefore - I disagree with the view of JAS who
posits a transcendent God as the Object of the semiosic Universe.
Edwina Taborsky
On Wed 15/05/19 3:45 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Jon, John, List,
Jon quoted John, then wrote:
JFS: 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.
JAS: No, that answer is obviously incorrect , since every
Sign--including every Sinsign or Token--is determined by an Object
other than itself.
I do not see how Jon's conclusion can be avoided: Every Sign must
have an Object other than itself.
JAS: "That leaves (2) ["God is transcendent -- outside of the
universe" JS] as the only remaining option, and there could be no
clearer reason for choosing it. The alternative is simply rejecting
altogether not only Peirce's definition of God, but also his
definition of a Sign as requiring an Object other than itself and/or
his characterization of the entire Universe as a Sign.
I have been following this discussion closely, finding your
'Semeiotic Argumentation' quite convincing, Jon. It seems that those
who are arguing contra your conclusions will eventually either have
to accept them as following from Peirce's own clear analyses, or they
will have to admit that they disagree with Peirce not only on the
Reality of God, but on the matter of a Sign requiring an Object other
than itself. And, as you've argued, that would include the entire
Universe seen as a Sign as Peirce did (one could, I suppose, disagree
with that as well, but then one is once again disagreeing with
Peirce's own clearly stated view).
So, in short, Peirce was clearly a theist who argued that if one
accepted that (1) the Universe is a Sign, and that (2) a Sign must
have an Object other than itself, then one is driven to the
conclusion that God is transcendent, outside the Universe and,
indeed, the Creator of that Sign which is the Universe. Your
Semeiotic Argumentation seems to me to bring together facets of his
semeiotic and religious metaphysic to show that this was indeed
Peirce's view (whether or not one agrees with it is another matter
altogether).
Meanwhile, Peirce's clearly stated definition of 'God' at the top of
"A Neglected Argument" has never been refuted by those scholars who
have looked much into it--such as Raposa, Orange, Nubiola, Potter,
T.S. Short and others--as evidence, along with many other statements
by Peirce--that he was a theist (perhaps of a "peculiar stripe").
Jon concluded:
JAS: ". . .one example of "the many fragmented dots today" '[JS] is
the divide between science and religion, which Peirce himself
conscientiously sought to bridge. I suspect that he would heartily
endorse efforts to develop and apply his ideas further toward that
end.
I would eagerly look forward to a discussion on the list of that
'hope' of Peirce that his semeiotic and metaphysic might contribute
to bridging that "divide between science and religion." I am working
on a draft of a post on 'trinity' which I'll post soon and which may
possibly serve as a preamble to such a discussion.
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
John, List:
JAS: I did not claim that my Semeiotic Argumentation for the
Reality of God is unavoidable; I said that it furnishes what seems to
me to be the unavoidable answer to the specific question that I had
just posed--if the entire Universe is a Sign, then what is its
Object?
JFS: 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.
No, that answer is obviously incorrect, since every Sign--including
every Sinsign or Token--is determined by an Object other than itself.
I already acknowledged that every Sign is its own Object in a trivial
sense, but if it has no other Object, then it does not represent
anything or mediate between two other correlates in a genuine triadic
relation--i.e., it is not a Sign at all.
JFS: 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.
Again, (1) and (3) are ruled out by classifying the Universe as a
Sign, as well as by the designation of God as "creator of all three
Universes of Experience," since the creator of X obviously cannot be
X itself, let alone merely part of X. Moreover, as I apparently have
to keep repeating and will finally here quote, Peirce explicitly
denied that God is "immanent in" nature or the three Universes in
four different drafts of "A Neglected Argument."
CSP: I do not mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence
is "immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of
minds, of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in
them. (R 843:11)
CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," throughout this paper will be meant,
the Being whose attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to
Him, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite benignity, and a Being not
immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole
Creator of every content of them without exception. (R 843:15)
CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be
meant, the Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually
ascribed to Him, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Infinite Benignity, a
Being not "immanent in" the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas,
but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception (R
843:19&21)
CSP: But I had better add that I do not mean by God a being merely
"immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every
content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical
facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. (R
843:26)
In each case, the emphasis on the word "not" is Peirce's own--it is
underlined in the manuscripts--while the all-encompassing scope of
"everything in them" and "every content of them without exception" is
unambiguous. (4) and (5) are obviously inconsistent with Peirce's
definition, since any definition of an ineffable or unreal God would
be false. (Note that Peirce quite deliberately argued for the
Reality of God, not His existence.) That leaves (2) as the only
remaining option, and there could be no clearer reason for choosing
it. The alternative is simply rejecting altogether not only Peirce's
definition of God, but also his definition of a Sign as requiring an
Object other than itself and/or his characterization of the entire
Universe as a Sign.
JFS: 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.
Indeed, and one example of "the many fragmented dots today" is the
divide between science and religion, which Peirce himself
conscientiously sought to bridge. I suspect that he would heartily
endorse efforts to develop and apply his ideas further toward that
end.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:04 AM John F Sowa < [email protected] [4]>
wrote:
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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
