List, JAS I’ll continue to disagree with you - I do think that you post your own beliefs -[ and I don’t see what is wrong with this!] for example, where you ascribe to god, ‘creating and writing on the blackboard. My only complaint is when you ascribe your beliefs to Peirce.
And you ignore the definition of Peirce that God means ‘Mind’. [6.502] Indeed, you tried to denigrate this quotation by adding your own term of [merely] ..in brackets, before the word ‘mind’ - without informing us that this addition was your own. Peirce didn’t write ‘[merely] mind’. He said - ’the analogue of a mind..is what he means by “God”. And, “the pragmaticistic definition of ens necessariium would require many pages; but some hints toward it may be given. A disembodied spirit or pure mind” [6.490 my emphasis]. So what if I use the term of nodes to describe the informational sites where information is processed? That’s a red herring tactic. What’s your problem with that? I didn’t declare their use as Peirce’s! But- these terms do, in my view, help to clarify what is going on within the semiosic triad. ..which is an active processing of hard data from an external site into an interpretation. And most certainly, there is a basis for Peirce explaining that there are three objects!! He specifically details them in 8.314 - which quotation I already gave, where he refers to the “This is a sign, whose Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical Object is the impression which I have presumably derived from peeping between the window curtains”. See the difference? This third Object, which is external and not necessarily sensed - is “There are Real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; …5.384. The Real Object [the weather] only became the Dynamic Object when Peirce looked at it. That is, I consider that you err in assigning the term of ‘Dynamic Object to these external ‘Real things’ with which we are not, at the time, semeosically interacting. . I consider that the term of Dynamic Object is, as Peirce outlines, that first contact of external stimuli into the senses. …which the semiosic triad will ‘indicate [8.314] …via the actual acceptance of stimuli. The actual acceptance of stimuli is The Immediate Object - “the Object as represented in the sign” 8.314. To give an example - if a dog is running around in he woods - there are lots of ‘Real Objects’..which the dog doesn’t interact with. But they are real! BUT - if it stops and sniffs the air, then - it has interacted with a Real Object, by ‘connecting, semiotically, with it - and thus, accepting the external stimuli which is coming from that Real Object. That Real Object is now, a Dynamic Object..because it is connected to the dog’s senses. BUT - not all the data of that external object can be sensed by the dog..so..what IS sensed and semiotically worked on, is the Immediate Object. It is this internal data - just a part of the full informational content of the Dynamic Object and just a part of the full informational content of the Real Object - that forms the Immediate Object, and it is this IO data that is transformed by the mediative laws of the Representamen into the various Interpretants. Edwina > On Sep 7, 2024, at 2:06 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 9:07 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
