BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
am going to only focus on the meaning of 'sign' and 'semiosis. That
is, I will refer only to one of JAS's comment below:
" Do you therefore deny that the Universe is a Sign? Or do you
view something other than God as its Object? Or do you simply think
that Peirce was wrong about every Sign being strictly passive in
relation to its Object? Rejecting the impassibility of God leaves
only those three options, as far as I can tell."
ET: I deny that the Universe is a Sign. My view is that Peirce did
not say that the "Universe is a Sign' . He 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 read the above phrase of 'perfused with signs' to refer to the
dynamic irreducible semiosic process of transforming data from
objects, via the representamen, into interpretants. This constant
plethora of triadic processes, IS the universe.
I don't reduce this action of semiosis to a 'thing'; i.e., I don't
reduce this triadic semiosis process to ONE Sign. And I think we also
have to be careful of what is meant by the term of 'sign'. Do we mean
the full triad of O-R-I? Or, the mediative process of the
Representamen? So- if we are, by the term of 'Sign' meaning the full
triad, then, I don't reduce the plethora of signs to ONE triad. And
if we mean the Representamen, then, again, I don't reduce the
mediative action to ONE action. I agree that the Representamen is
passive to the Object, but it transforms this input data into an
Interpretant information - which triad is a Sign.
The step that JAS takes, - which is, I consider, regressive and
reductionist, does reduce the whole 'perfusion of signs' - to not
merely one sign, but to a conclusion that the Universe IS a Sign
[full triad or representamen? - I'm guessing - Representamen].
Can one really conclude that the Universe is not a full triadic
process but is instead, only the mediative process - which requires
an external Object to even exist as such? After all, the
Representamen, that mediative process, does not exist per se, it
functions only within the triadic semiosic process. Is the Universe
only the mediative process? That seems illogical. Even if, in its
generalizing nature, the sign/representamen generalizes among many
other signs/representamens to coalesce into a commonality - this
still doesn't mean that it 'exists on its own'.
The way I read Peirce's statement is that the entire Universe is NOT
a SIGN; it is a semiosic process generating a plethora of triadic
signs- and even, different representamens/laws. Therefore, there is
no external realm to the Universe; it is self-sufficient and
self-generating.
Edwina
On Sat 18/05/19 10:48 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Gary R., List:
I drafted this post last night, only to see this morning your
comment that you "would prefer not to get into theological
discussions as such," so I hope that you will bear with my responses
that fall into that category.
GR: ... one might argue that God (Abba) is transcendent while
Christ (the Word) is immanent, and as Christians say, we come to know
God the Father through God the Son.
Again, Peirce defined (and rejected) the "doctrine of an immanent
deity" as the proposition that the Universe either is God or is in
God; i.e., the Universe is either identical to God or part of God,
"in organic connection with" Him. Traditional Christian theology
likewise denies this, instead affirming that God is transcendent, but
also in the Universe--i.e., omnipresent--which is why it is possible
to become acquainted with God to some degree through "contemplation
and study of the physico-psychical universe" (CP 6.502; c. 1906).
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims
his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night
reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose
voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and
their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he
served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself
gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from
one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,
having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their
dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way
toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of
us, for "In him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:24-28)
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has
shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal
power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the
creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (Romans
1:19-20)
Moreover, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).
It is primarily in this sense that "we come to know God the Father
through God the Son."
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough
for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and
you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the
Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe
that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say
to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells
in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the
Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."
(John 14:8-11)
The Son is thus the supreme revelation of God, although not the only
one.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers
by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his
Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he
created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the
exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word
of his power. (Hebrews 1:1-3)
That leads to my next response.
GR: For there are many trusted accounts (plus adjunct records,
deeds, marriage licenses, etc.) of those who *did* know Peirce
personally, did have direct collateral knowledge of him.
This does not change the fact that our knowledge of Peirce today is
entirely dependent on indirect experience mediated by Signs.
Besides, there are many trusted accounts of those who knew God
personally, who had direct Collateral Experience of Him; those who
trust those accounts call them Scriptures, and many even today would
also claim to have had, and to continue having, such experiences. I
understand Peirce's "Humble Argument" to rely on this.
GR: I apologize for apparently getting it backwards, since you
write that it is not the Blackboard, but the Whiteboard that
represents "the particular actual universe of existence in which we
happen to be" (CSP).
No apology is necessary, but this is still not quite right. The
Blackboard represents the primordial reality, what you have sometimes
called the "ur-continuity" (3ns). The Whiteboard is a melded group of
white marks on the Blackboard, and represents a Platonic world of
pure possibility (1ns). A discontinuous mark on the Whiteboard
represents our particular actual universe of existence (2ns).
GR: My trinitarian view is that the Universe is perpetually being
acted upon by that Person of the Trinity which we Christians call the
Son, the Word; that it is through the God the Son that God the Father
acts on the Universe.
To clarify, are you suggesting that it is only through the Son, the
Word, that God the Father acts on the Universe?
GR: At present I reject the attribute of impassibility since I
believe that the Universe does have an effect on God the Father
through His relationship with the Son via the Holy Spirit which
mediates between them.
On Peirce's account, if the Universe has any effect at all on God,
then it cannot be a Sign whose Object is God. Do you therefore deny
that the Universe is a Sign? Or do you view something other than God
as its Object? Or do you simply think that Peirce was wrong about
every Sign being strictly passive in relation to its Object?
Rejecting the impassibility of God leaves only those three options,
as far as I can tell.
GR: I was thinking more of its use in certain theological systems
as meaning a being who is in one sense subordinate to the Supreme
Being, but who is yet Creator of the Material World.
Understood, but in traditional Christian theology, Christ is only
subordinate to the Father in His humanity--not in His divinity, as
the Word. He is "God of God, light of light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by Whom
all things were made" (Nicene Creed). All three Persons are
"coeternal and coequal" (Athanasian Creed).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:00 PM Gary Richmond <
[email protected] [3]> wrote:
Gary F, Jon, List,
[Note: this is a response to two message, one from Gary f, one from
JAS]
Gary F wrote:
Gf: Cosmotheandric?? Cynthia Bourgeault on Raimon Ranikkar's
term Cosmotheandric:
Cosmotheandric is the term Panikkar invents to describe this
dynamic relational ground. The word itself is the fusion of cosmos
(world), theos (God), and andros (man) and suggests a continuous
intercirculation among these three distinct planes of existence in a
single motion of self-communicating love.
Gf: Anyway, what I have to say in this post is very much about the
continuity of semeiosis, so let’s not drop that from the subject
line just yet.
GR: I'm not sure why you suggested that we might 'drop' continuity
(of semiosis) from the Subject line. I see no reason to drop any of
the three terms of the Subject of the thread, 'Trinity',
'Continuity', and Cosmotheandric' from the Subject line for now, and
least of all 'Continuity'.
Gf: I think Jon has done a good job of representing Peirce’s views
on the Universe as Sign, and the reality of God, but I think he’s,
well, transcended anything Peirce said by placing before us a
dichotomous choice of the Creator as either immanent or transcendent
with respect to the Universe (or the three Universes). After all,
Peirce did not say that God was “transcendent,” and although he
ruled out “immanence” in the drafts of NA, he did not mention it
one way or the other in the published article.
GR: I agree that Jon has and continuous to do "a good job of
representing Peirce’s views on the Universe as Sign." As for the
"dichotomous choice of the Creator as either immanent or
transcendent," I have introduced 'Trinity' into the discussion
especially in consideration of both problematics: (1) Peirce not
saying anything about God's "transcendence" but, (2) his ruling out
"immanence" in the NA drafts, while not mentioning it at all in the
article itself.
Gf: I think your trinitarian(?) option is as logically viable, and
perhaps more pragmatically and morally viable, than Jon’s position
as I understand it. But for now I’d like to stick with semiotics
rather than delving into ethics or pragmatism just yet.
GR: I also think that the "trinitarian option" (exactly that) is
logically, pragmatically, morally and, I might add, aesthetically
more viable than Jon's position, especially for those who are not
conservative Christians. I hope that it may eventually have some
resonance for both religious and non-religious people. Meanwhile, of
course you are free to limit your contributions to this thread to
semeiotics, although I am choosing another course.
GR: Super-briefly stated (so please allow for further explication of
it), the gist of my trinitarian argument is that for those who
entertain the notion of the 'Cosmic Christ' (I mentioned Fox and
Rohr, neither of whom limit it at all to Christianity), one might
argue that God (Abba) is transcendent while Christ (the Word) is
immanent, and as Christians say, we come to know God the Father
through God the Son. How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is
much too difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize here.
GR: The trinitarian argument may suggest a way around this
observation:
Gf: If the Universe is a Sign whose Object is God, then we must ask
how that Sign can convey knowledge of its Object. This is problematic
because the complete absence of God from the Universe of experience
would preclude any acquaintance with, or collateral experience of,
that Object.
GR: I do not think that Jon's suggestion (based on Peirce's re:
Boswell) that, lacking collateral knowledge, we can know God as, say,
we know Peirce. For there are many trusted accounts (plus adjunct
records, deeds, marriage licenses, etc.) of those who *did* know
Peirce personally, did have direct collateral knowledge of him.
Christians say that we know God the Father through the Son (Matthew
11:27) and that the Son, the Word, is God (in the Unity of the
Trinity): John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God." In the context of the idea of the
Word being the Cosmic Christ, one begins to imagine that it might be
possible to know at least something of God through the Son, the
Word--the Cosmic Christ speaking even now to us in myriad ways.
Gary f wrote, then quoted me:
Gf: Now, I’m familiar with a fair amount of Mahayana scripture,
and I’ve never come across anything like this:
GR: "at least in some schools of Mahayana Buddhism, it is said that
the Buddha spun the wheel of dharma in the creation of the world and
then immediately went into a state of Nirvana. In such a situation
the creator is indeed entirely separate from his creation
post-creation."
Gf: I’d appreciate it if you could cite a source for that. (If
it’s right, I must have been reading the wrong texts!)
GR: I spent at least a decade and a half reading Buddhist writings,
including Mahayana scripture, Tibetan Buddhist tantras, accounts of
the sermons of Zen masters (for example, and esp. Rinzai), etc. as
well as as much of other religious traditions' texts (and
commentaries on these, and other secondary literature) as I could
digest, including Vedantist, Muslim, Taoist, etc. texts (much more,
of course, including First Nations Peoples' oral 'texts') I am quite
certain that I read what is quoted above, although it may turn out not
be from Mahayana scripture, more likely from the transcription of a
Zen masters words. A Google search didn't bring up anything, so I'll
have to assume I read it in a book that cannot be assessed on line.
Jon wrote:
JAS: Again, based on Peirce's own definition of "immanent," his
multiple explicit statements that God is not immanent in Nature or
the three Universes entail not only that the Universe is not itself
God, but also that the Universe is not in God or "in organic
connection with" God. I take this to rule out both pantheism and
panentheism, respectively; but perhaps you have a different
definition of the latter in mind. GR: As I mentioned in my comments
to Gary f above, and while I reject pantheism, I think there is a
case to be made for panentheism. However, it requires something at
least like the idea of the Cosmic Christ. Those least likely to
entertain this notion, that what is panentheistic is the working in
the world of the Cosmic Christ, are probably conservative religious
people of any tradition..
Jon wrote:
This Whiteboard is continuous, but its continuity is entirely
derived from and dependent on that of the underlying Blackboard. It
is then "a discontinuous mark" (RLT 162; 1898) on one such Whiteboard
that represents "the particular actual universe of existence in which
we happen to be" (CP 6.206-208; 1898).
GR: I apologize for apparently getting it backwards, since you write
that it is not the Blackboard, but the Whiteboard that represents "the
particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be"
(CSP). I will have to read your paper again, something I've been
meaning to do in any case. You have to admit, that it's a subtle and
nuanced argument which you present there.
Jon quoted me as having previously written:
GR: Here, at least in some schools of Mahayana Buddhism, it is said
that the Buddha spun the wheel of dharma in the creation of the world
and then immediately went into a state of Nirvana. In such a
situation the creator is indeed entirely separate from his creation
post-creation.
JAS: This cannot be what Peirce had in mind by a non-immanent God,
since he explicitly described His creation of the Universe as
ongoing.
I did not mean to suggest that whatsoever in respect of
Christianity. And since I have not been able to find the source from
which I extracted that notion, I am prepared to drop it in respect to
Buddhism as well.
JAS: The conclusion of my Semeiotic Argumentation . . . simply
means that the Universe is not part of Him, which is the traditional
divine attribute of transcendence; and the Universe has no effect on
Him, which is the traditional divine attribute of impassibility. In
fact, if I am right that the entire Universe is an example of what
Peirce called a perfect Sign, then it "is perpetually being acted
upon by its object" (EP 2:545n25; 1906).
GR: My trinitarian view is that the Universe is perpetually being
acted upon by that Person of the Trinity which we Christians call the
Son, the Word; that it is through the God the Son that God the Father
acts on the Universe. At present I reject the attribute of
impassibility since I believe that the Universe does have an effect
on God the Father through His relationship with the Son via the Holy
Spirit which mediates between them.
Jon quoted me:
GR: God remains active in the world ("God is Love") through the
'person' of the Cosmic Christ, a living and relational concept which
some contemporary interpreters, such as Matthew Fox and Richard Rohr
argue, need not at all be limited to Christianity.
JAS: As a fairly conservative Christian from a theological
standpoint--certainly more so than Peirce, and probably more so than
most--I am very wary of (literally) unorthodox statements about the
Trinity. . . . John 1:1 affirms not only that the logos was with
God, but also that the logos was God (rather than a Demiurge or blind
agent); and John 1:3 affirms that all things were made by the logos.
GR: Your being "a fairly conservative Christian, you will probably
find my entire argument unpalatable. On the other hand, we seem to be
in full agreement that "John 1:1 affirms not only that the logos was
with God, but also that the logos was God . . .and John 1:3 affirms
that all things were made by the logos." I will, however, retract my
use of the term 'Demiurge' (I think I qualified it to "something
like" or "a sort of") to characterize the Cosmic Christ, especially
if, as you did, one defines "Demiruge" as 'blind agent'. I was
thinking more of its use in certain theological systems as meaning a
being who is in one sense subordinate to the Supreme Being , but who
is yet Creator of the Material World. But, again, the term can only
lead to confusion, so I retract it and will no longer use it.
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
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 .
