List: My focus is on the semiosic unit [ the Sign, capital S] and the process of its formation and operation.
1] I refer to Mary Libertin and Helmut’s references to both Spencer’s Laws of Form and Louis Kauffman’s ‘knots’, both of which are grounded in the work of Peirce. That is, the fact is – that our universe is ‘existential’, in that it is made up of matter – in discrete forms [ whether as gas, particles, thoughts, words, etc. ] My focus is on these forms, which, as I read Peirce, are necessarily triadic. “I propose to use the word Phaneron as a proper name to denote the total content of any one consciousness’. EP 2: 363. If there is a phaneron ,the idea of combination is an indecomposable element of it. This idea is a triad; for it involves the ideas as a whole and of two parts…Accordingly there will necessarily be a triad in the Phaneron.[EP2 362-3 CP: 8.305” I shall define a Sign and show its triadic form. “ “A Representamen is the first correlate of a triadic relation, the second correlate being termed the Object and the possible Third Correlate being termed is interpretant. EP 2:290 “Signs…are triadic” 6.344. That is- there is no such thing as an isolate representamen/sign. It cannot exist or function in itself, but only as a triad. 2} This triad emerges, as such, when energy takes on material form. To consider this, we must examine Peirce’s various outlines of the emergence of our universe. “we must assume that there was in the beginning, a state of things in which there was nothing, no reaction and no quality, no matter, no consciousness no space and no time, but just nothing at all. Not determinately nothing. For that which is determinately not A supposes the being of A in some mode.” EP 2: 272. See also CP 1.412. And 6.203.6.217. The close relationship of Mind and Matter is repeated by Peirce on many occasions, where Matter is effete Mind. CP 6.73, 6.102 The movement of this nothing which I would consider pure energy, and is outside of space and time –into space and time, is within a triadic format. Here, we can see the nontrivial knot of Kauffman and the forms of Spencer Brown. This leads to the Phaneron, which is made up of closed triadic forms in constant interaction with other forms. ’”The entire universe, not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider universe embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which we .. refer to as the truth- that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs’ EP 2;394. By this I understand that spatiotemporal energy only exists as triadic forms, ie, Signs [capitalized!] I’d note here that the Dynamic Object is not operative outside of the semiosic triad. As Peirce notes, ‘By the way, the dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means someone forced upon the mind in perception, but including more than perception reveals. It is ghe object of actual experience. EP2;478.. And in his example of the weather CP 8.314, the Dynamic Object is the actual or real meteorological conditions at that moment-of-perception ..when Peirce actually looks at it. 3] Furthermore, this spatiotemporal unit, the triadic Sign, operates within the three categories. Therefore, it is a reality that chance, or freedom [Firstness] is basic to the universe and therefore, this enables adaptation and evolution. ..that is, there must be ‘this element of absolute chance in nature’ CP 7.514. As such, and as Gary F has pointed out, the semiosic universe operates as a CAS, a complex adaptive system, which is self-organised. “But if the laws of nature are results of evolution, this evolution must proceed according to some principle, and this principle will itself be of the nature of a law. But it must be such a law that it can evolve or develop itself’. 7.515….where ‘plasticity and evolution’ are still at work 7.515. And see his outline of ‘evolutionary cosmology 6.102. And 6.101-g Edwina > On Jul 26, 2025, at 9:53 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, list, > > There is one statement near the beginning of your post that strikes me as > absurd, and nothing in the remainder of your explanation changes that > impression. > > JAS: at the present, that [completely determinate] state of things [namely > the all of reality] "is comprised of everything that is in the past" (p. 253). > > The past is not a place where things go when they die (i.e. become completely > determinate). Nothing exists“in the past.” The “state of things” (as Peirce > says) is “an abstract constituent part of reality.” In reality though, as in > the “perfect sign,” nothing is static; “the all of reality” then is as > imaginary as a point on a continuous line. Everything that happens, including > every instance of determination, happens now, and nothing unhappens. > > I’ve offered an alternative Peircean account of determination and causality > which addresses the question raised by Gary R here: > https://gnusystems.ca/TS/css.htm#causdetrmn, for those who might be > interested. > > The crucial point I’d like to make is this: time and semiosis are both > continuous, but while time is one-dimensional and one-directional, i.e. > “linear” (to use a spatial metaphor), semiosis is predominately nonlinear. > Semiosis requires time but also requires energy flows, and energy flows in > systemic processes are typically nonlinear. In the human brain, for instance, > the majority of functional areas that project neuronal signals to other areas > also receive feedback from those areas, and do so continuously during the > current process. Where the organization is hierarchical, the top-down and > bottom-up flows mutually determine what happens. Peirce does acknowledge > mutual determination in the context of Existential Graphs, but he could not > have known how it was physiologically embodied in semiosis or cognition, > because system science was hardly even embryonic in his time. > > Jon, my reading of your post may be uncharitable, but I couldn’t help it! > > Love, gary f. > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Jon Alan Schmidt > Sent: 25-Jul-25 18:11 > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiosic Ontology (was Spencer-Brown's concept of > 'reentry') > > 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 > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
