Hello, Just a quick remark.
Edwina says: 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. Let’s focus on examples drawn from mathematics. As Peirce points out, this area of inquiry has the advantage of conceptions that are less vague than, say, theology. Consider the following assertions. 1. The ring of the integers is infinite. 2. The fields of the rationals and the reals are infinite. 3. The geometrical space set forth in the Euclidean system is infinite. 4. Logically speaking, the conception of Euclidean geometric space is outside of the conceptions of the ring and fields mentioned above. That is, the Euclidean geometric space characterized by the postulates, definitions and common notions set forth in books 1-4 of the Elements is not numerically ordered in the manner that, say, a Cartesian conception of space is ordered. Is there something illogical here? I don’t think so. Hope that helps. Yours, Jeff From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 4:17 PM To: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Cc: Peirce-L <[email protected]>, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation 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 On Sep 9, 2024, at 6:43 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. [cid:ii_m0vknepo0] 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<http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://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.
