I have always had trouble with Peirce's universes. I am awash in theories and accounts and descriptions from everywhere because I spend time listening to and reading this and that. Multiple universes. Untold size of all. I sense Peirce could be talking about universe in a sense of a pocket or area of this or that. If that is so that is simply a way of talking about relative things. I could say Tolerance Helpfulness and Democracy are not simply terms I suggest to suggest a range of ethical reflection but universes of human response to the elements of this Ethics triad. Universe implies all and I can live with universality as the All we can approach but not fully fathom, etc. But when Peirce posits three I wonder what he means. I really pass them by.
Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK <https://t.co/ywLbuOu5NX> Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83 <https://t.co/UQ2Q6m1e7G> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 3:51 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/18/2019 12:30 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > If someone wishes to claim that a particular statement is being > > taken out of context, then that person has the burden of showing > > that this is the case, not merely /asserting/ it. > > Absolutely! That is an essential part of the methodeutic. > > > what I see is a Percept that has no parts, which I then interpret > > by prescinding predicates and abstracting subjects to formulate > > the Propositional Judgment, "That is a rock. > > No. That claim is another example of ignoring the full context. > Note that the great majority of Peirce's examples of signs are > physical things. > > Also look at the eleven senses of the word 'sign' that Peirce > defined for the Century Dictionary. Each one defines 'sign' > as a physical thing. None of them mentions the word 'percept'. > > If Peirce's technical sense of the word 'sign' were inconsistent > with *every* sense by everybody (including himself in nontechnical > usage), that would be a gross violation of his ethics of terminology. > > > if the entire Universe--i.e., all three Universes of Experience, > > taken together--is a Sign, then what is its Object? Clearly it > > cannot be anything within any or all of the three Universes, > > so it must be something outside them. > > Wait a minute. In the paragraph above, you denied that physical things > can be signs. And in this one, you claim that the physical universe is > a sign. You can't have it both ways. > > In any case, Peirce said "all this universe is perfused with signs, if > it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448). The word 'perfuse' > is rare: it only occurs once in CP. The clause beginning with 'if' > is tentative, and being composed of signs is not the same as being > a sign. Nothing about that quotation is clear, and Peirce did not > mention God or any aspect of God in the surrounding context. > > Finally, since 5.448 is silent about God, a Satanist could take your > argument, replace every occurrence of the word 'God' with the word > 'Satan' and conclude that Satan is the creator. The ability to > derive two contradictory propositions Q and not-Q from P is a > reductio ad absurdum that demonstrates the falsehood of P. > > > To make bald assertions without offering any supporting > > argumentation violates every principle of responsible scholarship. > > I'm delighted that you agree. > > And as we have seen, there is no supporting argumentation > for the claim that CP 5.448 implies that God is the creator. > > As Stephen said, "Enough already." > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
