BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - Again, you DO commit a 'begging the question', because you
assume that there is 'something outside the Universe'!!! You make
that assumption from the false analogy that since Peirce said that
every Sign requires an external Object, and you state that he said
that ' the Universe is a Sign' - then, the Universe MUST have an
Object external to itself....which you then declare as 'God'.
But you have not provided any evidence that Peirce ever considered
that the Universe has boundaries, such that it could have an External
Object! A deductive argument isn't evidence - it's merely a logical
conclusion from premises which may, in themselves, be false.
Therefore it is not a pragmatic or REAL conclusion. Again - you have
no evidence that Peirce considered that the Universe has boundaries.
Instead, as others have pointed out, with the meaning of the term of
'immanent', my interpretation of Peirce's cosmology and the semiosic
Universe, is that it operates without boundaries. There is no
'internal' and 'external'. And, it operates as a continuous
[synechism] semiosic process within the necessary immanent functions
of the three categories. The universe is a semiosic process, composed
'exclusively of Signs'. As Peirce wrote:
"The entire universe - not merely the universe of existents, but all
that wider universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part,
the universe which we are all accustomed to refer to as 'the truth' -
that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed
exclusively of signs" 5.449f.
I interpret the above, not as you do, where you interpret that the
Universe IS A Sign; I interpret the above to mean that the Universe
is a semiosic process continuously generating Signs. That is, Mind is
transforming to Matter within the functions of the three necessary
modal categories. This interpretation doesn't rest on any notion that
the Universe has boundaries; it doesn't assume that there is an
external and internal Universe.
Again, my interpretation is very different from yours.
Edwina
On Thu 16/05/19 2:54 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Please see the response that I just posted, which briefly addresses
(again) the claim that the external Object of a Sign must be a Sign,
which is not what Peirce actually wrote in the quoted passage.
ET: 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.
No, it would only be begging the question if either or both of the
premisses included the assumption that there is something outside the
Universe. But that is not the case; it is only from the conclusion
that we can draw the further inference that there is something
outside the Universe. Consider an isomorphic syllogism that should
not be controversial.
*Major premiss: Every Sign is determined by an Object other than
itself.
*Minor premiss: The word "man" is a Sign.
*Conclusion: The word "man" is determined by an Object other
than itself.
*Further inference: There must be something outside the word
"man" that determines it.
Perhaps restating the major premiss will be helpful--there is
something outside every Sign that determines it. This still does not
entail that there is something outside the Universe; we can only
conclude that once we add the minor premiss--the Universe is a Sign.
To deny that there is something outside the Universe, one must either
deny that there is something outside every Sign, or deny that the
Universe is a Sign--either of which would be a clear and obvious
departure from Peirce's explicitly stated views.
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 12:37 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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
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 .
