List: 1. There is nothing *a priori*, Platonic, or ideal--let alone all three--about Peirce's topical conception of a true continuum as an undivided whole that is ontologically prior to its parts. Again, my paper <https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHPTC-2.pdf> on the subject has all the details.
2. There is nothing illogical about a transcendent/non-immanent, eternal/non-temporal, and disembodied/non-spatial entity being outside time and space, even if the latter are infinite. According to classical theism, God is not a "force" and has no "location"; God is always and everywhere, but not at any one instant nor at any one place. Again, this might be paradoxical, but it is not self-contradictory. 3. There is nothing in Peirce's writings about signs/objects/interpretants having concrete "perimeters" or sharp "boundaries." Again, we *prescind *individual signs with their individual objects and their individual interpretants from the real and continuous process of semiosis as *entia rationis*, deliberately marking them off from each other as artifacts of analysis; and we can understand any and every event that occurs as a dynamical interpretant, an actual effect of the sign that is the entire universe *prior to that moment*. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 6:15 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > 1] I would quibble with the concept that the ‘whole is ontologically prior > to its parts’. ..which sets up a kind of a priori Platonic ideal form [ and > Peirce was an Aristotelian] ..and saw Mind and Matter as bonded. > > 2] The claim that ‘God is outside space and that space is infinite - seems > to me at least, to be illogical. If a force/whatever, has a location > outside [or inside], then the spatial domain has perimeters and is not, by > definition, infinite. > > 3] If the sign/representamen’s relation with the Dynamic Object is that > the DO is external to the S/R, which requires a perimeter/boundary to the > S/R….then, this boundary has to also exist for the Dynamic Intepretant, > ..understanding the DI as ’the actual effect which the Sign, as a Sign, > really determines 4.536. I think that an ‘effect, which suggests a reaction > [2ns] requires a separation from the Sign/Representamen. > > 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.
