Gary F., List: Thanks for the link to that passage near the end of "Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism." Quotation 4.3.3 of my "Semoisic Synechism" paper is from a manuscript draft of the same paragraph and elaborates further on the assertion that an argument cannot be built up from propositions any more than a motion can be built up from positions; instead, propositions serve to *describe *arguments, just as positions serve to *describe * motions.
As quoted below, what Peirce characterizes as "Indefinite as to its Object" is the consequent of a conditional *proposition*, not the conclusion of an *argument*. There is a sense in which these are equivalent, at least in the case of a valid deductive argumentation--if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is true--but surely that is not what he has in mind in classifying the entire universe as an argument. That being the case, exactly what "logical resolution of the cosmological/theological question" do you perceive that passage to be suggesting? It seems impossible to me to bridge the gap between classical theism and panentheism because they involve contradictory and thus mutually exclusive conceptions of God and God's relationship to our existing universe. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
