List: Nothing that I have posted on the List has been about *my *"personal beliefs," except to the extent that I agree with the various remarks by Peirce that I have quoted. Again, everyone reading along has seen for themselves what *he *said in his own words about the reality and necessity of God as creator of all three universes. This is Peirce-L, not Schmidt-L nor Taborsky-L.
No one has described the three universes as "separate realities"--in fact, it is precisely their "co-reality" for which logic requires a "rational explanation" (R 339:[293r], 1908 Aug 28)--but Peirce consistently *distinguishes *them in his late writings. He refers specifically to "Platonic worlds" in the blackboard diagram lecture, adding that "there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another; until finally out of one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be" (CP 6.210, 1898). Accordingly, the constitution of being is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). In Peirce's terminology for speculative grammar, the object, the sign (or representamen), and the interpretant are not "nodes"; they are the three *correlates *of the genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating. There is no basis whatsoever in *his *writings for the novel assertion below that there are *three *objects for every sign; on the contrary, he explicitly and repeatedly states that there are *exactly two* objects, dynamical (external to the sign) and immediate (internal to the sign). None of this is even remotely controversial; see statement 4.5, the three Peirce quotations supporting it, and footnote 24 in my "Semiosic Synechism" paper. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 9:07 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
