Jon, List, Jon thanks for bringing these three passages together for our consideration, especially in the light of your concluding argument with which I am in agreement.
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List: > > In the spin-off thread on Universes and Categories, I proposed that--analogous > to the blackboard diagram--the Immediate Interpretant is a continuum of > potentiality on which the Dynamic Interpretant is actualized, and the > universal tendency to take habits then leads to the development of the > Final Interpretant. Further contemplation of this notion led me to several > other passages from Peirce's writings that together suggest what I think is > an interesting synthesis. > > CSP: So, then, the essence of Reason is such that its being never can have > been completely perfected. It always must be in a state of incipiency, of > growth ... This development of Reason consists, you will observe, in > embodiment, that is, in manifestation. The creation of the universe, > which did not take place during a certain busy week, in the year 4004 > B.C., but is going on today and never will be done, is this very > developement of Reason. I do not see how one can have a more satisfying > ideal of the admirable than the development of Reason so understood. The > one thing whose admirableness is not due to an ulterior reason is Reason > itself comprehended in all its fullness, so far as we can comprehend it. > Under this conception, the ideal of conduct will be to execute our little > function in the operation of the creation by giving a hand toward > rendering the world more reasonable whenever, as the slang is, it is "up to > us" to do so. In logic, it will be observed that knowledge is > reasonableness; and the ideal of reasoning will be to follow such methods > as must develope knowledge the most speedily. (CP 1.615, EP 2.255; 1903) > > CSP: ... the 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 ... The Universe as an argument is > necessarily a great work of art, a great poem--for every fine argument is a > poem and a symphony--just as every true poem is a sound argument. (CP > 5.119, EP 2.193-194; 1903) > > CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an > infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, > supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves > the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet > as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define > itself more and more, and without limit. The hypothesis, being thus > itself inevitably subject to the law of growth, appears in its vagueness to > represent > God as so, albeit this is directly contradicted in the hypothesis from its > very first phase. But this apparent attribution of growth to God, since > it is ineradicable from the hypothesis, cannot, according to the > hypothesis, be flatly false. Its implications concerning the Universes > will be maintained in the hypothesis, while its implications concerning > God will be partly disavowed, and yet held to be less false than their > denial would be. Thus the hypothesis will lead to our thinking of features > of each Universe as purposed; and this will stand or fall with the > hypothesis. Yet a purpose essentially involves growth, and so cannot be > attributed to God. Still it will, according to the hypothesis, be less > false to speak so than to represent God as purposeless. (CP 6.466, EP > 2.439-440; 1908) > > CSP: An *Argument* is a sign which distinctly represents the > Interpretant, called its *Conclusion*, which it is intended to determine. > (CP 2.95; 1902) > > > Peirce's cosmology is ultimately less about what happened in the distant > past than about what is going on *right now*. In semeiotic terms, the > universe is a vast Representamen--specifically, an Argument, and therefore > also a Symbol; a manifestation primarily of Thirdness, but also necessarily > involving elements of Firstness (Icons of Qualities) and Secondness > (Indices of Reactions). The Dynamic Object of the universe as an Argument > is God Himself, infinitely incomprehensible, vague but continually becoming > more and more definite without limit; and its Immediate Object is God's > purpose, which is the development of Reason--this very growth of knowledge > about God, as well as about the three Universes of Experience that He has > created and is still creating. Finally, the Interpretant of the universe > as an Argument is its Conclusion, the living realities that it is always > working out--the Immediate Interpretant, as a continuum of potentiality, > serving as the substrate for actualization of individual Dynamic > Interpretants, and the habit-taking tendency developing some of these into > Final Interpretants. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
