Gary R., List: GR: Are you saying that the universe considered as one vast sign is a "perfect sign"? Does Peirce explicitly say this anywhere?
Yes, that is what I am saying. Peirce himself does not *explicitly *say this, but here is how the passage that both of us have been quoting begins in EP 2:545n25. CSP: Consider then the aggregate formed by a sign and all the signs which its occurrence carries with it. This aggregate will itself be a sign; and we may call it a *perfect *sign, in the sense that it involves the present existence of no other sign except such as are ingredients of itself. The universe is the aggregate formed by a sign and all the signs which its occurrence carries with it, and is therefore *itself *a sign. It involves the present existence of no other sign except such as are ingredients of itself, because there are no other signs *at all*. GR: Also, is the vast sign that is the universe then a quasi-mind? Yes, it is. Here is how the passage that both of us have been quoting ends in EP 2:545n25. CSP: This quasi-mind is an object which from whatever standpoint it be examined, must evidently have, like anything else, its special qualities of susceptibility to determination. Moreover, the determinations come as events each one once for all and never again. Furthermore, it must have its rules or laws, the more special ones variable, others invariable. As a quasi-mind, the universe involves qualities (1ns), events (2ns), and rules or laws (3ns). Peirce writes to Lady Welby at about the same time, "Now as every thinking requires a mind, so every sign even if external to all minds must be a determination of a quasi-mind. This quasi-mind is itself a sign, a determinable sign" (SS 195, 1906). Not every sign in the universe is internal to a mind, but every sign is a determination of the quasi-mind that *is *the universe. GR: If so, how does that quasi-mind connect to the Mind of God as Peirce conceives of it in your understanding? As a determinable sign, the universe requires something else to determine it, namely, its dynamical object. Moreover, in EP 2:545n25, Peirce says that the perfect sign "is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs"; and in other places, he talks about the Graphist who scribes the graphs on that sheet being "the Artifex of Nature"--much like the person making the chalk marks on the cosmological blackboard. Again, "Those who express the idea to themselves by saying that the Divine Creator determined so and so may be incautiously clothing the idea in a *garb *that is open to criticism, but it is, after all, substantially the only philosophical answer to the problem" (CP 6.199, 1898). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 5:08 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > There's one point in our recent exchange which I think might need some > clarification. You wrote: > > JAS: Moreover, God is constantly *determining *the universe as one > immense sign at every moment, such that it "is perpetually being acted upon > by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new > signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already > had, but which had lain dormant" (EP 2:545n25, 1906). > > > The actual quotation is: > > On the other hand, the perfect sign is perpetually being acted upon by > its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new > signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already > had, but which had lain dormant. In addition, the perfect sign never ceases > to undergo changes of the kind we rather drolly call spontaneous, that is, > they happen sua sponte but not by its will. They are phenomena of growth. > Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of > Existential Graphs. > > > God is not mentioned in the original quotation although, of course, you > have been arguing that God *is* the Od of the universe. > > Are you saying that the universe considered as one vast sign is a "perfect > sign"? Does Peirce explicitly say this anywhere? Also, is the vast sign > that is the universe then a quasi-mind? If so, how does that quasi-mind > connect to the Mind of God as Peirce conceives of it in your understanding? > > The passage quoted above brought to mind another which might put some > light on the above quotation. > > Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or entelechy, which he > never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very > fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so > identical,—in such identity as a sign may have,—with the very matter > denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the > Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be *that Universe in > its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being*. The "Truth," the fact that > is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign > (EP2:304, emphasis added). > > > Here the "perfect sign" is in identity "with the very matter denoted > united with the very form signified by it." Further, the phrase, "that > Universe in its *aspect* as a sign" is intriguing. What other 'aspects' > might the universe have? Especially if it is viewed as one vast sign? > Best, > > Gary R >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
