Gary R., List: CSP: There is but one *individual*, or completely determinate, state of things, namely, the all of reality. (CP 5.549, EP 2:378, 1906)
You ask how this assertion (2ns) squares with the evolutionary tendencies of the cosmos (3ns) and the role of chance (1ns), both of which Peirce plainly affirms elsewhere. I give my answer to this question in "Temporal Synechism"--at the present, that state of things "is comprised of everything that is in the past" (p. 253), because the future is always indeterminate to some extent; and "the ongoing evolution (3ns) of the entire universe conforms to the categorial vector of *process*: from being absolutely indeterminate (1ns) in the infinite past, when everything would have been in the future, toward being absolutely determinate (2ns) in the infinite future, when everything would be in the past" (p. 256). Therefore, in the *ultimate *sense, "the all of reality" is the *entire *dynamical object of the *final *opinion, the totality of what an infinite community *would *affirm after infinite inquiry--looking back across time as a whole, not somehow looking forward from a moment *within *time (determinism). However, *that *completely determinate state of things will never *actually *come about, which is why “our knowledge [along with everything else] is never absolute but always swims, as it were, in a continuum of uncertainty and of indeterminacy" (CP 1.171, c. 1893). CSP: At present, the course of events is approximately determined by law. In the past that approximation was less perfect; in the future it will be more perfect. The tendency to obey laws has always been and always will be growing. We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law. Moreover, all things have a tendency to take habits. (CP 1.409, EP 1:277, 1887-8) CSP: I may mention that my chief avocation in the last 10 years has been to develop my cosmology. This theory is that the evolution of the world is *hyperbolic*, that is, proceeds from one state of things in the infinite past, to a different state of things in the infinite future. The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. Between these, we have on *our *side a state of things in which there is some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of *habit*. (CP 8.317, 1891) I have deliberately refrained from introducing God into recent threads because, as indicated by the subject line of this one, I would prefer to focus for now on semiosic *ontology *rather than cosmology--especially since we have discussed the latter at great length over the years, both on and off the List, such that my position is already well known to you and others. As I said earlier today in a different thread, it is a fundamental semiotic principle that every sign is determined by a dynamical object that is external to that sign, independent of that sign, and unaffected by that sign. Accordingly, if the entire universe is one immense sign as Peirce and I maintain, then it must be determined by such an object--one that is external to the universe, independent of the universe, and unaffected by the universe. Of course, if God the Creator were real, then God would be such an object; hence, there is reason to suspect that God is real, and the final interpretant of the universe as a sign would then be God completely revealed. "The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute 1st; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute 2nd; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the 3rd" (CP 1.362, EP 1:251, 1887-8). In other words, God's purpose in *continuously *determining the universe as a sign--specifically, a *perfect *sign and thus a quasi-mind--is increasingly definite self-disclosure. "The creation of the universe ... is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903). "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. ... Thus, when I speak of chance, I only employ a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity" (CP 6.199&201, 1898). *Whose *freedom or spontaneity? "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" (EP 2:545n25, 1906). If not by *its *will, then by *whose *will? In summary, as I wrote years ago in "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" ( https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHANA-7.pdf), "God as *Ens necessarium*, eternal pure mind, creative of thought (third Universe), imagines an inexhaustible continuum of real possibilities and their combinations (first Universe), and exercises perfect freedom in choosing which of these to actualize (second Universe)." Returning to ontology, this is the constitution of being, which--like any topical continuum--conforms to the categorial vector of *representation *(3ns→1ns→2ns). According to Peirce, "Metaphysics consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of logical principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being. Accordingly, it is to be assumed that the universe has an explanation, the function of which, like that of every logical explanation, is to unify its observed variety. It follows that the root of all being is One; and so far as different subjects have a common character they partake of an identical being" (CP 1.487, c. 1896). My hypothesis is that the observed variety of the universe is unified and explained by recognizing that the One root of all being--the identical being of which all the different subjects within the universe partake--is the being of a sign. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 6:48 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Ivar, Gary F, Helmut, List, > > You asked what I considered to be 'the critical matter' in consideration > of your post to which Gary F initially responded. As I see it, it is > whether the top-down approach makes sense from any other than an omniscient > perspective, a theosemiotic one, that is, a God's eye point of view. > > And even from that perspective there appear to me to be some questions. > For example, does the statement that “There is but one *individual*, or > completely determinate, state of things, namely, the "all of reality,” > include the clearly very real* evolutionary tendencies* of the cosmos? > Wouldn't chance come into play -- and not only in past cosmic (and > biologic, intellectual, etc.) evolution, but in the ongoing evolution of > the cosmos? Such a "completely determinate state of things" would appear to > contradict not only the role of chance in evolution, but perhaps cosmic > evolution itself. How, in other words, can one argue that evolution is > "completely determinate"? > > I assume that you'll address Ivar's "possible contradiction." You claim > that 'everything is a sign' and that the whole universe is a sign > (top-down) and, further, that the whole is prior to its parts. But Ivar > suggested that while it may be ontologically possible to argue this, can't > the parts be logically prior to the whole? For a simple example, a > conceived possible conclusion of my current post may by chance -- or > otherwise, say, by design -- be interrupted, changed to move in an entirely > different direction. The future's not for us mere mortals to know. Only an > omniscient Mind could know the whole unfolding of the cosmos, and to me > that suggests a kind of 'cosmic determinism' (although that's not quite the > right phrase; but neither is 'omniscience') entirely different from the > mechanical one. But again, how can one argue that evolution in the cosmos > is "completely determinate"? > Further, if “There is but one *individual*, or completely determinate, > state of things, namely, the all of reality,” why did Peirce also write > that “our knowledge is never absolute but always swims, as it were, *in a > continuum of uncertainty and of indeterminacy*. *Now the doctrine of > continuity is that all things so swim in continua*” (emphasis added)? So, > not only "our knowledge" but "*all things* so swim in continua.” So, all > signs swim in continua? > > Further, you argue that signs are not parts but the pattern of the > whole: Anything that exists can function as a sign’s object and so is “of > the nature of a sign.” But since signs are* determined* by their objects > as well as *determining* their interpretants, they must themselves be > *determinable*, i.e. they are not “completely determinate.” How then can > they be included in “the all of reality”? As I recall, your argument > involves seeing God as the Object of the entire Semiosic Universe. > > You say with Peirce that "The entire universe is *perfused* by signs, if > it is not composed exclusively of signs" and, further, that its unfolding > is a lawful, triadic, continuous process. But if real laws exist > independently of human minds, then they demand an explanation. One > classical answer is that such a structure implies a rational law giver. But > since Peirce argues that laws themselves can evolve (and evolution includes > chance -- chance 'sporting' in biological evolution), what could be the > role of a rational law giver, viz., God? How would both lawfulness come > into being and laws themselves evolve? > > Again, you reject the pansemiotic idea, that “everything is a sign” > bottom-up, in favor of a top-down “semiosic synechism” where the *whole* is > a sign. This would seem to make the universe a kind of grand semiotic unity > which we can try to read (through science, etc.) as if it were a book, the > universe appearing as a coherent text, real laws being like rational > decrees, and our human minds participating in reading the cosmic meaning -- > all pointing to a Cosmic Mind in which all signs find their final > interpretant. Does that in any way conform with you view? > > I suppose that, although I'd prefer to keep God and theism out of this > discussion, in my thinking it's impossible to do so. Or, rather, that “There > is but one *individual*, or completely determinate, state of things, > namely, the all of reality” is a difficult notion to swallow from a > strictly semeiotic vantage point. And that Peirce's own professed theism > may have influenced such a -- to my mind, at least -- radically > unscientific view. > > 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.iu.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.
