Jon, List,
You concluded your second post today:
JAS: As the subtitle of my "Semiosic Synechism" paper indicates, and as I
acknowledge at the end of its preface, what I have spelled out there (and
touched on here) is an ostensibly *Peircean* argumentation, not one that
Peirce *himself *ever explicitly presents. Each summary statement is
(mostly) in *my own* words as a *proposed *interpretation of his texts (and
the world) for consideration, along with the accompanying quotations and
citations. Hence, readers can decide for themselves whether my case is
adequately supported by those texts, as well as whether they find it
plausible in accordance with their understanding of the world.
I find it not only judicious but also ethically sound that you added to
your "Semiosic Synechism" paper title the subtitle, "A Peircean
Argumentation," and explicitly pointed to what is suggested by that
subtitle in this forum. I say this for two reasons.
1. Your subtitle clearly signals that the argumentation in your paper is
*not* Peirce's although to some considerable extent influenced by or
spring-boarding off of some of his ideas.
2. In my recent post to the List supporting your desire to present Peirce's
own thinking in his own words, paraphrasing, or otherwise rewording them
only in the interest of introducing them in a manner which explicates them
by reiterating them ("in other words") I did not for a moment mean to
suggest that that is *all* you do. Not by a long shot. Indeed, what I have
found *most* valuable in your scholarship is your originality in developing
Peirce's thought, and 'Semiosic Synechism is an excellent example of just
that creative use of Peirce's ideas.
If I question anything regarding your scholarship, it is that the
cosmological work you've done seems driven by your desire to support your
own theism through an explication of Peirce's. That's where Jeff's
questions -- at least those regarding personal beliefs vs. free and
independent scholarship -- come into play in my thinking. Still, there is
much in Peirce's published writings that support theism in the scientific
context of his cenoscopic philosophy.
That is to say that, yes, I agree with you that Peirce was a theist and
that powerful arguments supporting theism are there in his scholarly work,
and not only his personal beliefs. But I think it is also the case that
there is also in his work ideas which can be taken to support, if not
pantheism (which I personally thought was all but dead), but panentheism,
something which one finds in (or at least adumbrated in) many religious
other than the monotheistic ones, for example, in the spiritual sensibility
of the First Nations people of North and South America. And add to this
that Peirce seemed to find value in Buddhism, for example, although he
considered Christianity to be perhaps the only evolutionary religion
(that's a whole other discussion).
It seems to me likely from what you wrote on List that you did not even
read Eugene Halton's paper, which I highly recommended, because it doesn't
speak to your orthodox and credal faith. Fine. But then why comment on
something one hasn't read?
In a word, I always question that aspect of a person's scholarship which is
directed towards supporting his beliefs. Did Peirce do that, for example,
in the N.A.? No doubt. But as you yourself have suggested, there is also in
Peirce's work that could be, yes, interpreted to suggest panentheism
(although certainly *not* atheism as I think we both see it).
Well, these are just passing remarks. I will be incommunicado in a day or
two as I fly off to visit close friends in Belgium and Holland. In such
situations I tend to occasionally read what's on the List, but rarely
respond. The idea is to have a break from the tensions which scholarly
debate can produce, at least in me.
In truth, I care deeply about each of the members of this forum even as I
might strongly disagree with one or more of their ideas. That's just to be
expected. But as I've noted occasionally in the past, when teaching courses
in Critical Thinking (within a Philosophy Department), I always urged my
students to critique *ideas* and not *persons*. While it is no doubt true
that I haven't always followed my own good advice, I consider those lapses
to be kinds of personal failure. Mea culpa.
Given the harsh criticism that you have sometimes been dealt on the List,
Jon, I would like to testify to what I consider to be the *fact *that you
have never, even once, made an ad hominem attack in this forum. Thus, I
have come to see that while you and I may have -- do have -- deep
disagreements as to matters of personal belief, that as a scholar I have
always, and will always, support your right to do scholarship here as you
see fit. This is because, in my opinion, but without a doubt, you are an
ethical scholar in the Peircean sense.
I say this because recently I made the error, one which Jeff Doward pointed
to, of the possibility of conflating someone's personal beliefs with their
scholarship. Thanks, Jeff, for getting me -- and I hope others -- thinking
about this.
Best,
Gary R
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 6:44 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> List:
>
> When Peirce asserts that the universe is *one *immense sign, "a vast
> representamen," he goes on to describe it as also encompassing *many
> *signs--"Now
> every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of
> Reactions and its Icons of Qualities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903). In
> other words, every symbol *involves *indices and icons; and likewise,
> every argument *involves *propositions and names. However, he makes it
> clear elsewhere that a symbol cannot be *built up* from icons and
> indices, and an argument cannot be *built up* from names and
> propositions--the whole is ontologically prior to its parts, which are
> indefinite until deliberately marked off, consistent with his late topical
> conception of a true continuum. I invite anyone interested in the details
> to read my paper on that subject (
> https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPTC-2.pdf).
>
> The notion that the entire universe is a sign whose dynamical object is
> external to it *does not* entail that the universe is finite; after all,
> Peirce maintains *both *that God is outside time *and *that time is
> infinite, and I see no reason why it could not likewise be the case
> *both *that God is outside space *and *that space is infinite. To
> illustrate this, I have provided the following diagram previously--his
> cosmology is *hyperbolic*, such that the universe (3rd) is constantly
> proceeding from an initial state in the infinite past (1st) toward a
> *different *final state in the infinite future (2nd). On the projective
> plane, the circle represents time and the horizontal line at infinity
> represents the Absolute, which is always at the same temporal (or spatial)
> interval from any assignable date (or place)--both infinitely distant
> (transcendent) and immediately present (eternal and omnipresent). This is
> perhaps paradoxical, but not self-contradictory.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Peirce repeatedly states that the dynamical *object *of any sign is
> external to it, but as far as I know, he never says this about its
> dynamical *interpretant*. In fact, according to him, the interpretant of
> any *argument *is its conclusion, and the universe is still "working out
> its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193)--every *actual
> *event
> is a dynamical interpretant of the entire universe *prior *to the moment
> when it occurs; again, "The creation of the universe ... is going on today
> and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903). On the other hand, the
> *final *interpretant of any sign is its *ideal *outcome, which need not
> ever *actually *be achieved. That is why I suggest not only that God the
> Creator is the dynamical object of the universe as a sign, but also that
> God completely revealed is its final interpretant.
>
> CSP: The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute
> 1st; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute
> 2nd; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the 3rd.
> (CP 1.362, EP 1:251, 1887-8)
>
>
> As the subtitle of my "Semiosic Synechism" paper indicates, and as I
> acknowledge at the end of its preface, what I have spelled out there (and
> touched on here) is an ostensibly *Peircean* argumentation, not one that
> Peirce *himself *ever explicitly presents. Each summary statement is
> (mostly) in *my own* words as a *proposed *interpretation of his texts
> (and the world) for consideration, along with the accompanying quotations
> and citations. Hence, readers can decide for themselves whether my case is
> adequately supported by those texts, as well as whether they find it
> plausible in accordance with their understanding of the world.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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.
