Among the words that Peirce defined for the *Century Dictionary *are: deism, deist, theosophy.
In each case he had the option of adopting unchanged the definition that was in the *Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, *which served as a template for the *Century, *and he did this often with words whose standing definitions he found adequate. For all three words above he revamped the entries and in all cases scaled back the theist assertions made in each. The *Imperial *definition of *deist *has the phrase "one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of nature and reason as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker." Peirce eliminates this from his definition and defines both Deist and Deism in relation to a belief in God, without comment on the basis for it. The *Imperial *says *theosophy *is "a general name given to those systems of philosophy which profess to attain to a knowledge of the Divine Being by spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations." Peirce's main definition is simpler than this and he adds an encyclopedic note: "[theosophy] differs from most philosophical systems in that they start from phenomena and deduce therefrom certain conclusions concerning God, whereas theosophy starts with an assumed knowledge of God, directly obtained, through spiritual intercommunion, and proceeds thereform to a study and explanation of phenomena." The *Imperial Dictionary *is viewable online via the Hathi Trust; the *Century Dictionary *online is http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/. Finally, Peirce's headword list is here: http://www.pragmaticism.net/peirce_cendict_wordlist.pdf Orin Hargraves On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 7:14 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > John - I agree - most of us don't want to rehash our earlier arguments > about these topics but I don't want to clarify. > > I don't think that it's Peirce's work that is controversial, with some of > us preferring to work only in the non-controversial areas. I think that > it's our individual interpretations of his work that can be controversial. > > 1] For example - I don't agree with JAS's comment where he uses the > phrase 'the whole universe is a sign' to justify its perhaps singular > dependence on his view of a singular external object 'God'. I read Peirce > as actually saying: "the entire universe- not merely the universe of > existents, but all that wider 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". 5.449ff > > I note that the above us of the term 'sign' is in the plural of 'signs' - > which, to me, implies a vast semiosic process of transforming > multiple objects-data into multiple interpretants-meaning. This image of a > complex and diverse universe, self-organized in its semiosic actions - is a > very different reading from that of JAS. > > 2] And '"the universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's > purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities". 5.119. > > I understand the 'representamen' as a process of mediation, of > transforming object-data to interpretant-meaning and therefore, I read this > sentence of Peirce in a different way than does JAS, who reads it to mean > that 'the entire universe is a sign' [singular] and he refers it to god as > an external object. > > 3] And we also read the nature of the final interpretant in a different > way. These has already been outlined in the past few days by Auke as well > as myself. > > ---------------- > > My point is that I don't think that it is Peirce who is controversial. I > think that our different interpretations of Peirce are controversial. And - > I don't think that we have to all agree! There is nothing wrong with these > differences - as long as we acknowledge that they are our interpretations - > and not 'the Gospel-of-Peirce'!! > > Edwina > > > > > > On Fri 17/04/20 11:16 PM , "John F. Sowa" [email protected] sent: > > Jon, > > I have no desire to rehash our earlier debates about the following issue: > > JAS> Accordingly, what I *have *suggested previously is that semeiotic is > sufficiently robust to prompt the plausible hypothesis of God as the real > and independent object that determines the entire universe as a sign. I > know that you disagree with this, but we have > debated it sufficiently in the past and need not rehash those arguments. > > I admit that some readers may consider that analysis as "plausible". But > others would strongly disagree. It's safe to conclude that the point is > controversial. > > People like Dan, Michael, Edwina, and many other subscribers to Peirce-L > find the noncontroversial aspects of Peirce's semeiotic to be valuable for > their work. I usually agree with them. > > There is nothing wrong with discussing the controversial applications to > theology. But it's important to say that one can use Peirce's theories > without accepting those hypotheses. > > 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 .
