BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
JAS, list
You are basing your entire argument on the Conclusion that 'the
Universe is a Sign' and a Sign must be determined by an External
Object'. But you are ignoring that this External Object must also be
a Sign! [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 a sign or thought. ]
And if this external Object is 'of the nature of a sign or thought'
- then, what is ITS EXTERNAL OBJECT????
Or is it 'turtles all the way down'?
Furthermore - you ignore that for an External Object to be in
interaction with a Sign, this can only take place within the
semioisic process - which means, that the External Object is
within/immanent with the whole semiosic process - and not external to
it!
And you continue to ignore that your 'argument' rests on a simple
syllogism which is actually a complex question because it contains an
unexamined assertion that the Universe has boundaries, such that it
has its own nature as 'internal' - and - an external reality.
Nowhere does Peirce outline such a situation. And I consider it
insufficient as an argument for you to declare that such a situation
exists BECAUSE Peirce says that the Universe is a Sign and because he
requires that a Sign have an External Object. ….and if the Universe
is a Sign..THEN...an External Object exists....which you call 'God'.
That's not a valid argument since the key premiss; i.e., the nature
of the Universe as 'having boundaries' is taken-for-granted - and I
consider that such a view cannot be 'taken-for-granted'. It's a
'begging the question' fallacy of logic.
Edwina
On Thu 16/05/19 1:09 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: In addition, I disagree with Jon's basic axiom [and please
don't quibble about whether something is/is not 'an axiom'] that if
the Universe is a Sign, and a Sign requires an External Object, THEN,
the External Object [external to the Universe], is God.
Sorry, I definitely have to quibble about calling this an axiom; it
is not, it is a deductive Argumentation--a straightforward syllogism,
in fact--and the necessary conclusion is missing.
*Major premiss: Every Sign is determined by an Object other than
itself.
*Minor premiss: The entire Universe is a Sign.
*Conclusion: The entire Universe is determined by an Object
other than itself.
I do then add, "And this we call God," citing various passages where
I interpret Peirce as endorsing such an identification. Are there
other candidates for the (necessarily external) Object of the
Universe?
ET: I simply don't see that Peirce has anywhere written that the
Universe has boundaries; i.e., that it exists as itself as
differentiated from the Non-Universe.
Peirce explicitly affirmed both premisses above, which
entails--unless we are going to accuse him of logical
inconsistency--that he also affirmed the conclusion, and thus held
that there is an Object that is external to, independent of, and
unaffected by the Universe. He also explicitly stated that God is
"Really creator of all three Universes of Experience," and is " not
immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole
Creator of every content of them without exception."
ET: In addition, as I also quoted, to Peirce, even the
external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign, and thus, it belongs IN
the Semiosic Universe.
Here is the actual quote from Peirce.
CSP: 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 a 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 thought or of a
sign. (CP 1.538; 1903)
From the first clause, it is incontrovertible that if the entire
Universe as a whole is a Sign, then it must stand for an Object
independent of itself. Again, if not God, what would qualify? In
order to deny that the entire Universe as a whole is determined by an
Object other than itself, one must deny that the entire Universe as a
whole is a Sign at all. But Peirce explicitly affirmed that the
Universe as a whole is a Sign, so that means disagreeing with Peirce.
From the rest of the quote, it is equally incontrovertible that the
Universe can only be a Sign of its external Object in so far as that
external Object is of the nature of a Sign or thought, such that the
external Object must be able to convey thought. Peirce did not say
that "the external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign," but rather
that the Sign represents its external Object only to the extent that
the Object is of the nature of thought; and he explicitly affirmed
elsewhere that God is of that nature, at least "loosely" and
analogically ("by similitudes").
ET: I agree with John Sowa's point, that the Universe is quite
capable of self-generation of Signs - and does not require an
external-to-itself Object to function as a semiosic Sign.
On the contrary, according to Peirce, every Sign requires an
external-to-itself Object; so if the Universe has no such Object,
then it cannot be a Sign; but according to Peirce, it is a Sign, so
it must have an external-to-itself Object.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:36 AM Edwina Taborsky <
[email protected] [3]> wrote:
JAS, List
I originally quoted that 6.502 section to outline my view that
Peirce considers that the term of 'God' can be considered as 'Mind'
and I continue with that interpretation. I don't consider it to be a
'misunderstanding' at all. Indeed, when one considers the various
outlines of Mind-as-Matter etc discussed by Peirce throughout his
work, then, it is, to me, a rational interpretation.
As I've said - I don't see the functionality of our quoting the SAME
passages to each other, and each of us claiming a different
interpretation - with JAS telling me that my interpretation is a
'misunderstanding' - while I will only declare that I consider HIS
interpretation to be just that - HIS interpretation [ie not a
'misunderstanding'.].
In addition, I certainly don't interpret this analogy of the
Universe-as-Mind with its meaning, as Jon states, that this could
mean that "the Universe itself is God'. I don't interpret Peirce as
saying that! Nor do I consider that Peirce is saying that, as Jon
writes, that " Likewise, "the physico-psychical universe" is not
itself God, but rather a Sign of God that conveys knowledge of Him"
- and I don't see this outlined in 6.502.
In addition, I disagree with Jon's basic axiom [and please don't
quibble about whether something is/is not 'an axiom'] that if the
Universe is a Sign, and a Sign requires an External Object, THEN, the
External Object [external to the Universe], is God. I simply don't see
that Peirce has anywhere written that the Universe has boundaries;
i.e., that it exists as itself as differentiated from the
Non-Universe. I don't interpret anything that Peirce has written as
promoting such a view. And therefore, there is NO Object
external-to-the-Universe. In addition, as I also quoted, to Peirce,
even the external-to-the-Sign Object is itself a Sign, and thus, it
belongs IN the Semiosic Universe.
I agree with John Sowa's point, that the Universe is quite capable
of self-generation of Signs - and does not require an
external-to-itself Object to function as a semiosic Sign.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
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 .
