Edwina, List: ET: Again, you DO commit a 'begging the question', because you assume that there is 'something outside the Universe'!!!
No, again, I do not *assume *that there is something outside the Universe--I *conclude *that there is something outside the Universe. On the other hand, treating it as an "axiom" that there is *nothing *outside the Universe *is *begging the question. ET: But you have not provided any evidence that Peirce ever considered that the Universe has boundaries, such that it could have an External Object! On the contrary, please see my last post that applied Peirce's own definition of "immanent" to his explicit statements in multiple manuscript drafts that God is *not *immanent in the Universe. If God is neither "within" the Universe nor "in organic connection with" it nor identical to it, then He must be *outside *the Universe. ET: 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. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. It means straightforwardly *denying* the minor premiss of my Semeiotic Argumentation--the entire Universe is a Sign--and thus *disagreeing *with Peirce's explicit statement that "the Universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193; 1903). It also requires *disagreeing *with Peirce's theorem that "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; 1904). Anyone is free to argue that Peirce was *incorrect *on both counts--he would have been the first to acknowledge his own fallibility--but no one can *reasonably *ascribe to him the position that the entire Universe is *not *a Sign. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
