JAS, List And I have pointed out to you - and ’this’ is ‘one more time’- that Peirce could not have meant that the universe is perfused with only the first correlate - since the correlates cannot be separated, except intellectually. The universe is hardly merely an action-of-mediation. See 5.436 where Peirce says that Thirdness ‘does not constitute reality’. And Peirce continues ‘by [a] vigorous denial that the third category…suffices to make the world” 5.436.
The other two correlates are vital parts of the universe. You are now admitting this. So, indeed, it’s a triadic universe - made up of O-R-I. As Peirce points out, “Signs, the only things with which a human being can, without derogation, consent to have any transaction, being a sign himself, are triadic” 6.344 Your other claim that the universe is some kind of ‘whole unit’, and only the first correlate, is without any evidence [ other than your own persuasion] and you don’t explain what the Dynamic Interpretant would consist of - since it would presumably also have to be external to the universe. [None of this is found in Peirce ]. . And Peirce wrote, numerous times, in his analysis of the emergence of the universe and the three categories, that they emerged - from nothing. He was not using a Newtonian mechanical analysis - which indeed would reject ’something-from-nothing’. Peirce’s examination of ’nothing’ sees it as ’not the nothing of negation’ but of ’nothing at all’.. a state of absolute nothing’ 6.215….’the nothing of not having been born’…the germinal nothing’..’boundless nothing’ 6.217-8. He doesn’t refer to a ’necessary being’. Edwina > On Sep 19, 2024, at 6:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 1:41 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
