List: By reviewing an extensive selection of Peirce's definitions of "sign" from Robert Marty's list of 66, we have conclusively established in the other thread <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00048.html> that he uses it to refer *only *to the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating, *never *to that relation itself nor "the whole triad." Once again, everyone reading along has seen for themselves what Peirce said in his own words about this; and once again, I am now content to leave it at that.
On the other hand, I share the uncertainty expressed below about the relevance of mathematical examples of different "sizes" of infinities (Cantor's "cardinalities," Peirce's "multitudes"). The real numbers are a "larger" infinity than the integers and rational numbers, yet every integer and rational number is *also *a real number. This seems more compatible with panentheism, in which God is understood as *containing *the universe, than theism, in which God is understood as *transcending *the universe. It is not just *my *assertion "that the universe operates as a sign" (singular), it is *Peirce's *assertion; and not only in the passage quoted below, but even more so in this one, as I have been pointing out all along. CSP: [T]he Universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities play in an argument, that they of course play in the Universe, that Universe being precisely an argument. (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903) No one is suggesting that if the universe is temporally and/or spatially infinite, then it nevertheless has "finite perimeters," which would indeed be illogical. Classical theism does not posit *any *kind of "boundary" between the universe (whether finite or infinite) and God who transcends it. That would be a category mistake, conceiving God and the universe as two commensurable *things*, such that one is either beside or inside the other--again, seemingly more compatible with panentheism, in which the universe is understood to be an organic *part *of God. For the theist, God is not in a *different *or *larger *temporal and spatial realm from the universe; instead, as the *creator *of time and space, God is altogether *non*-temporal and *non*-spatial. Consider this additional quotation from Peirce. CSP: [I]t is impossible that any sign whether mental or external should be perfectly determinate. If it were possible such sign must remain absolutely unconnected with any other. It would quite obviously be such a sign of its entire universe, as Leibniz and others have described the omniscience of God to be, an intuitive representation amounting to an indecomposable feeling of the whole in all its details, from which those details would not be separable. (CP 4.583, 1906) As he writes contemporaneously elsewhere, "There is but one *individual*, or completely determinate, state of things, namely, the all of reality" (CP 5.549, EP 2:378, 1906). Taken together, the conclusion that I draw from these statements is that the entire universe, "the all of reality," extending from the infinite past to the infinite future (and back again), is one immense sign--a vast semiosic continuum, unconnected with any other sign because *there are no other signs*, perfectly and completely determinate *from God's perspective* because it is eternally present to God and intuitively known by God *as a whole*. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:27 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > 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 > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
