List: I will point out one more time that in the 76 definitions complied by Robert Marty, Peirce *never *says that a sign *is *a triadic relation; instead, he *repeatedly *says that a sign *is in* a triadic relation. A sign is *that which* mediates between its object and its interpretant, *not *the triadic relation of mediating *itself*.
Accordingly, when Peirce says that the universe is "perfused with signs," he means *precisely *that it is perfused with first correlates of triadic relations. However, each of those signs must indeed have its corresponding object and interpretant--the other two correlates, between which it mediates--and *within *the universe, *both *of these are *also *signs with *their own* objects and interpretants, and so on. Again, in my view, all these *individual *signs/objects/interpretants are artifacts of analysis prescinded from the real and *continuous *process of semiosis. Nothing comes from nothing--Peirce's Logic Notebook entry of 1908 Aug 28 is unambiguous in asserting the *logical requirement* for the reality of a *necessary being* in the state of things *logically antecedent* to the co-reality of the three universes, in which there were *no phenomena *whatsoever, to be the author and creator of *every phenomenon* whatsoever. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:41 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, Gary R, list > > I will comment only on the last paragraph of this post by JAS. I feel it > makes several assumptions which are not, in my interpretation, grounded in > the Peircean analytic framework. > > 1] “all this universe is perfused with *signs*, if it is not composed > exclusively of signs" 6.5448ff emphasis added. I think the error here is to > assume that Peirce meant by this - that the universe is composed > ‘exclusively of Representamens’, ie, the first correlate in the semiosic > triad. This is logically impossible, since the semiosic triad is > irreducible - and we cannot conclude therefore, that the universe is > composed exclusively of ONLY the singular first correlate. > > In addition, it would also mean that the Representamen could NOT be in a > mode of Thirdness, since this mode, as a generality, cannot ‘exist’ on its > own. We see from the ten classes, that six of the ten, are in a mode of > Thirdness. See also 5.436, where Peirce is quite specific that "the third > category - the category of thought, representation, triadic relation, > mediation, genuine thirdness, thirdness as such - does not by itself > constitute reality ...…can have no concrete being without action”. > > By the above - I understand that Thirdness…which he also sees as > ‘representation, triadic relation’ - can’t ‘fill the universe’ ; it does > not, on its own, ‘constitute reality’; it requires a connection to its > other correlates. > > In addition, the term of ‘correlate means, by definition, interactive; it > cannot exist alone. > > Given this error - [ of denying that Peirce meant the full triad with his > use of ’signs] - one therefore must indeed search for a Dynamic Object [as > well as a Dynamic Interpretant!!] - and the notion of ‘God’ is suggested. > > 2] But Peirce’s several outlines of the origin of the universe [1.412, > 6.214-19] are quite clear - “the initial condition …was a state of just > nothing at all”..the germinal nothing”. > > I don’t see where the concept of a Dynamic Object could emerge in this > situation…Indeed, the concept of a DO could only emerge with the emergence > of semiosis, which itself, could only emerge with the emergence of the > three categories/universes - as outlined in 1.412. ..which then set up the > existence of matter, and habits..both of which would enable interactions > within semiosis and the functioning of a Dynamic Object. > > 3] This would thus bring us to a different definition of the term of God - > which would not put that force outside of the Universe, would not have the > universe itself consisting only of Representamens; but would instead, view > the agential force of the functioning of the Universe as Mind - the force* > within* the universe developing habits of organization of discrete matter > as well as enabling chance deviations. This is my reading of Perice - and > I’m aware that others do not share this interpretation but have their own > interpretations. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
