Gary R., List: I sincerely hope that we can indeed continue discussing religious and cosmological *metaphysics* from a Peircean standpoint, where I suspect that there is still much on which we agree, even while refraining from discussing our increasingly divergent views regarding religion *itself*.
When Peirce famously states, "all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906), to what universe is he referring? He states explicitly that it is "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'" (ibid). In other words, it is the *overall *universe that encompasses "all three universes"--not just the 2nd universe of "Occurrences," but also the 1st universe of "Ideas" and the 3rd universe of "Reasons" or "*Logoi*" (R 339:[293r&295r], 1908 Aug 28). Accordingly, God *must *stand outside of *all three* universes as their "author and creator" (ibid); God *cannot *be "in that other Platonic, and so, ideal world before existential time, before existence itself was" (GR below), because he is just as much the creator of *that *world as he is of our *existing *universe. Note that Peirce does not call the cosmological blackboard a *metaphor*, he calls it a *diagram* (CP 6.203, 1898)--it represents "the relations ... of the parts of one thing by analogous relations in their own parts," rather than "the representative character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in something else" (CP 2.277, EP 2:274, 1903). In my interpretation of it, God *first *makes the blackboard itself, representing the primordial (semiosic) continuum; *then *draws the melded groups of white chalk marks that I call *whiteboards *in section 5 of my "Neglected Additament" paper, representing "Platonic worlds" of pure possibilities; and *then *draws "a discontinuous mark" on one such whiteboard, representing "this Universe of Actual Existence" (NEM 4:345, 1898). However, this is a *logical *sequence, not a *temporal *sequence, since time is entirely *within *our existing universe. Moreover, in accordance with Peirce's speculative grammar, the (dynamical) object of *any *sign *must *be external to it, independent of it, and unaffected by it. In that sense, *every *(dynamical) object stands outside of *every *sign that it determines. Therefore, if the entire universe is one immense sign, then its (dynamical) object must nevertheless be external to it, independent of it, and unaffected by it--attributes that match up nicely with Peirce's definition of God as *Ens necessarium*, logically antecedent to "all the phenomena there are" in "the Three Universes" by virtue of being "that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever" (R 339:[295r]). This is essentially my longstanding "semeiotic argumentation for the reality of God," which I present with supporting Peirce quotations in section 5 of my "Semiosic Synechism" paper. It is important to recognize that such transcendence (non-immanence) does not entail that God is *uninvolved *in our existing universe, as deism would maintain. On the contrary, from our perspective, God is *continuously *determining the universe as a sign--"The creation of the universe ... is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903). It is "a *perfect sign*, in the sense that it involves the present existence of no other sign except such as are ingredients of itself," and "is perpetually being acted upon by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant. In addition, the perfect sign never ceases to undergo changes of the kind we rather drolly call *spontaneous*, that is, they happen *sua sponte* but not by *its *will" (EP 2:545n25, 1906). This naturally prompts the question, by *whose *will do these changes happen? Likewise, in the blackboard diagram lecture, Peirce says, "Thus, when I speak of chance, I only employ a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity" (CP 6.200, 1898). This again naturally prompts the question, *whose *freedom or spontaneity? Later, he discusses "the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed ... absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility--boundless possibility ... boundless freedom ... So of *potential *being there was in that initial state no lack. Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted" (CP 6.217-218). What *necessarily* results from nothing is nothing, so the only *rational *explanation for "the co-reality of the three universes" (R 339:[293r]) is the logically antecedent reality of God as *Ens necessarium*, exercising boundless freedom or spontaneity in willing their ongoing creation. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 1:22 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > There is one matter in your paper which is problematic for me. Perhaps it > could be thought of as what I see to be the challenge of reconciling the > meaning of the Blackboard metaphor ('before' time came into being) and an > actual semiosic universe (for prime example, *our* Universe in > existent time). > > I have tended to think that when Peirce speaks of the Universe as a Sign, > that he is speaking of *this Existential Universe* with its own Objects, > Signs, and Interpretants, not an Object outside or beyond that universe, > that is, separate from that semiotic system. But you seem to be arguing > that God is the Object of that unique Sign (which is the Universe taken as > a whole) in that *other* Platonic, and so, ideal world before existential > time, before existence itself was. > > It seems to me that if you are arguing that God both stands outside of the > putative created universe and yet is its Object -- that is, that God is > *both* the Scribe writing on the Blackboard whereas certain Platonic > Ideas are *selected* by God (out of an* infinite number of possible > Platonic Ideas that might form a Universe*) *and *the Object of this > Universe. > > I don't see the Blackboard metaphor as representing either a semeiotic > system (in the Peircean sense, so no Object 'there' whatsoever) nor a > 'structural' trichotomy of categories (whether or not the categories are > considered Platonic ideas themselves). That is to say that semiosis and > trichotomic structure (Object -> Sign -> Interpretant) *will* evolve at > the earliest at the beginning of 'existential' time. In a word, how do you > see God as acting as the Object within our a semiosic Universe while > standing outside that semiotic system (cf. the Blackboard metaphor), that > of the created world? > > Best, > > Gary R > > [Note: I confess that it is clearly impossible for me to refrain from > discussing religious and cosmological metaphysics with you on the List, so > I'll stop trying.] > >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
