Jeff, list Sorry - I don’t think that these examples apply to my concerns. The integers and the rationals and reals in mathematics, aren’t applicable, in my view, ,to the assertion that a specific domain, such as the universe, is both spatially infinite AND finite.
My focus is the assertion by JAS that the universe operates as a sign [ which reference is correctly taken from Peirce’s reference that ’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 to refer to as ’the truth’ - that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs” 5.488ff. My concern is that I see Peirce’s reference to ‘’signs’ to refer to the whole triad of O-S/R-I. [object-ssign/representamen-interpretant]. That is, I take it as given that the triad of O-S/R-I is irreducible. None of these three relations operates/exists on its own. So-, when Peirce refers to the whole universe being composed of signs - I understand this to mean the full set of..O-S/R-I. JAS, however understands this reference differently. He seems to view the ’sign’ as written by Peirce to mean ONLY the ‘first correlate’, the sign/representamen. Then, he sets up the Dynamic Object as ‘outside the universe [ and defines it as ‘god’]. My concern is that this then redefines the infinite universe as having finite perimeters [ such that the DO can be located outside of it!]…and I consider that an infinite and finite universe is illogical. I also feel that to conclude that when Peirce wrote that the ‘whole universe is ‘composed exclusively of signs’ - that he was referring ONLY TO the first correlate, the Representamen!!! Since the triad is irreducible, - then, again, to me, this is untenable and illogical - for it means that part of the triad is ‘outside of the universe!. Not only that - but I simply don’t see how the universe, filled with matter - can be composed ONLY of the Representamen/Sign [ which cannot function on its own, but only as an agency/action of promoting habits]. Those are my concerns. Edwina > On Sep 10, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > The ring of the integers is infinite. > The fields of the rationals and the reals are infinite. > The geometrical space set forth in the Euclidean system is infinite. > 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. >  > > 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.
