List Since JAS is addressing the List and not only Gary R, then, I will also comment. I acknowledge that JAS has personal beliefs about the reality of God - and will not comment on his personal beliefs. My focus is only on his references to Peirce and my understanding of those same references.
1] In my understanding of Peirce, there is no such thing as a separate universe for each of the three categories. This particular quotation 5.448f does not refer to ‘all three universes’ but “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”….That’s the quote. That is, I can see no justification in Peirce to view the three categories/universes as separate realities. Peirce was not a Platonist but an Aristotelian, therefore, I don’t see any justification for a separate Platonic ‘universe of Ideas or a Universe of Reasons - each on their own. The ‘existing universe’ which we all experience is, in reality, according to Peirce, operative within all three categories of 1ns,2ns [ these existents] and 3ns. 2]. The outline in 1.411-12 of the emergence of the universe is: “the original chaos, therefore, where there was no regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which nothing existed or really happened….Out of the womb of indeterminacy we must say that there would have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the principle of habit, there would have been a second flash….the habits and the tendency to take them ever strengthening themselves”.. >From this outline, I see no explanation of an agential force causing these >flashes and habits. And “ The initial condition, before the universe existed, was not a state of pure abstract being. On the contrary it was a state of just nothing at all”..6.215 And, “We start with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. …But this pure zero is the nothing of no having been b born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility - boundless possibility. “ 6.2l7. I do not see any implication that this emergence of the three categories with the universe requires an a priori agency standing outside of these ’three universes. The emergence of the universe is not a mechanical process which requires an external agent, but is, in these descriptions by Peirce, self-organized. 3] I have no comment on JAS’s view of the blackboard, since it is his own outline of ‘god making the blackboard’…and has nothing to do with Peirce’s outline ] My understanding, however, of the Sign is that it is irreducibly triadic, [5.484] composed of a triadic relation of three ‘connected ’nodes’, which are termed the Object - the Representamen - and the Interpretant. This irreducible triad is then further broken down into six connected nodes: The Dynamic Object, the Immediate Object,, the Representamen, the Immediate Interpretant, the Dynamic Interpretant and the Final Interpretant. . Notice- these are all connected; none of them existentially exist outside of this semiotic process. However it is vital to note that Peirce, when using the term of ‘object’ provides THREE types. There is the Dynamic and the Immediate…which are both part of the semiosic triadic process AND there is also the Object - which is outside of the semiosic connective relationship! The DynamicObject is that which the mediate sign ‘indicates’ [8.314] ; the DO is” the Reality which by some means contrives to determine the Sign to its representation”. 4.536. It is not real but fictive [8.314]. That is, its ‘informational content, so to speak, doesn’t become apparent and semiosic until its data is in connection with the Representamen. [ See Peirce’s outline of the weather in 8.314, where he writes that "the Object as expressed, is the weather at the time, but whose Dynamic Object is the impression which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window curtains’. 8.314 1909]. That is, the DO is NOT external to the semiosic triad but is a vital part of it. The Object, on the other hand, outside of the particular semiosic interaction, is ‘real’ and independent of our thoughts of it [6.349]. I think it is important to clarify the definition of these three objects. Edwina > On Sep 6, 2024, at 10:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 1:22 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
