Jon, list, I hope we can indeed leave the discussion about the triadicity of semiosis behind us (except for Edwina who will probably “continue to disagree”), but I think Peirce’s 1903 remark about “the Universe being precisely an argument” bears another look in the light of his 1906 remarks about the “Process of Transformation, which is evidently the kernel of the matter” of Argument.
The complete text of those remarks in included here <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/xlp.htm#precisarg> , and it suggests a logical resolution of the cosmological/theological question that seems to bridge whatever gap there is between classical theism and panentheism — especially if the “Consequent [of the Universe as Argument] is a Sign which is Indefinite as to its Object.” (The text linked to here contains several links within itself, which makes it quite impractical to transcribe in a list post.) Love, gary Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg } The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. [Thomas Berry] { <https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> Turning Signs From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 10-Sep-24 23:25 To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Synechism: A Peircean Argumentation 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 <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.
