Jon, List, Jon: "Your follow-up questions are valid but frankly seem a bit jumbled. I have taken a stab at rearranging them to facilitate offering my initial answers, resulting in another lengthy post. . ." Gary: Sorry for the 'stream of consciousness' lack of ordering of my questions. Your rearranging then is quite good, and I didn't find your post especially lengthy.
I had written: GR: Firstly, doesn't the OD (which you've argued is God) need to be known by collateral observation or some sort of acquaintance? What sort of collateral knowledge *could *the Universe-as-Vast-Sign have of its OD, God? ... So who is reading the Vast Sign? Your answer refers to *human* responses, whereas my question concerns the Universe as a whole (but is* its* mind, as you seem to be suggesting, not 'its' but the Mind of God? -- so not mine or anyones.) As you wrote: "An admittedly unusual feature of the universe as a sign is that we are interpreting it from *within *it, so it is natural to wonder how we can experience *anything *apart from it, and Peirce's response seems to be that we have *direct *experience of God." No doubt *some *seem to have direct experience of God. That is all well and good from the human standpoint, although I must immediately add that what any individual experiences as "direct experience of God" likely differs widely. For example, my experience of the numinous -- which I've experienced profoundly several times in my life such that I have come to reject materialistic conceptions of, especially, the origins of the cosmos, is not the God of the monotheistic religions. Jon: He states that synechism "is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God," of whom "we must have a direct perception," and that people who doubt the reality of such God do so only because "facts that stand before our face and eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily discerned." Gary: Well, that's a leap: from synechism to "the doctrine of a personal God." I haven't come to that and would, rathert describe my numinous (for lack of a better word) experiences as a sense of something like a fiery cosmic Essence or cosmic Presence burning into my soul in a way which religions doctrine and dogma never has. Music and the arts come closer to a sense of it. The idea of the experience of a "living personality of God" has become near alien to me, although during a large portion of my youth, young adulthood, and middle age I did 'pray to' that "living personality." So, I see Peirce's and your argumentations coming from an initial, very strong theistic sensibility *which is not everyone's*, for example, not those of Hindus and some Buddhist Tantrists, etc., etc.This is to say that if one begins from a theistic position that has been deeply ingrained since ones youth, one will tend to see everything -- including universal semiosis -- through that lens. We in the West have historically been rather strongly biased in that direction (most especially in Christianity). Jon: The immediate object of any sign is internal to that sign and corresponds to how it identifies its dynamical object. Gary: Well, yes, but your example of "the immediate object of an ordinary word is whatever satisfies its verbal definition, which is its immediate interpretant" once again references human semiosis. Perhaps that is unavoidable. But when one is inquring at the cosmic level, the universe-as-a- whole, I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced. GR: Isn't the Vast Sign itself necessarily within a mind or something like a mind if it is 'conceived' at all? ... Is the Cosmic Sign out of God's Mind altogether? But if the mind I'm inquiring into is the Mind of God, then how can the Vast Cosmic Sign stand apart from *that*? ... That is, *where* is that Sign situated in relation to consciousness/mind? Jon: As a perfect sign, the entire universe is *itself *a quasi-mind. . . . God is not only its dynamical object, but also its *utterer*; and just as any spoken or written sign *token *is external to its utterer's mind, likewise our *existing *universe is external to God's mind. Gary: This strikes me as assuming a great deal: viz., God as both OD and utterer of the universe seen as a symbol. Would you give some other examples of an OD also being the utter of a sign? I think there may be, but at the moment I'm at a loss to think of one. Jon: On the other hand, the inexhaustible possibilities from which God chooses some to actualize might be strictly internal to God's mind, depending on how we understand Peirce's references to them as "Platonic worlds" in his blackboard discussion. GR: Again, this notion of "God choosing" what possibilities will bring about this (or, perhaps some other universe), anthropomorphizes God in a way in which Peirce and you, but not everyone (including me) is comfortable with. Yes, Peirce sees such anthropomorphizing not as a bug but as a feature. To me it sometimes seems like grasping at straws. Jon: As Peirce says, "signs require at least two Quasi-minds; a *Quasi-utterer* and a *Quasi-interpreter*; and although these two are at one (*i.e.*, are one mind) in the sign itself, they must nevertheless be distinct. In the Sign they are, so to say, *welded*" -- distinct *and *welded? And, "though we cannot think any thought of God's, we can catch a fragment of His Thought, as it were." Gary: Is that thought a thought 'of' God's or a grasp of some feature 'of Nature?. The former seems impenetrable; the latter what science considers. Sometimes theocentric religions present themselves as if they could "think [the] thought of God." Their very Books are based on that premise. GR: So, if not the mind of God (who stands apart from it and yet, you say, somehow sustains and evolves it), then what? Again, how is the Cosmic Sign determined by God when, I assume, no physical determination is meant in your semiotic use of 'determine? Jon: Since God is an infinite being, God's *complete *self-disclosure is an unattainable/asymptotic limit at which the universe as one immense sign would be *perfectly *determinate, thereby realizing its *final * interpretant--"an interpretant which would be the *perfect Truth*, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe ... the ideal sign which should be quite perfect ... the fact that is not abstracted but complete." Gary: So God's purpose would seem to lead us over the millenia to "the perfect Truth" which "we would be the very Universe." This somehow leaves each generation -- and everyone in each generation who does not submit to this view of God -- bereft of meaning. One is either a theist or. . . what? Condemned? (OK, that was unfair as you have stated that you do not want to enter theological terretority in this discussion -- although I think it's unavoidable). GR: I have little doubt that some might see these kinds of questions and this kind of discussion as akin to 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin'? Jon: On the contrary, I think that they are important for establishing the *internal *coherence of my conception of the entire universe as one immense sign whose dynamical object is God the Creator and whose final interpretant is God completely revealed, which is obviously necessary (but likely not sufficient) for its plausibility. GR: Not quite "on the contrary": I completed that thought you've quoted above from my earlier post by remarking that ", , , for those of us who take metaphysical questions such as Peirce (and you) have posed, well, we find that they stimulate thinking in us about cosmic spiritual matters of importance to us even if we aren't (at least not yet) attuned to your "conception of the entire universe as one immense sign whose dynamical object is God the Creator and whose final interpretant is God completely revealed, which is obviously necessary (but likely not sufficient) for its plausibility.". One does not have to submit to your (and, you've well argued, Peirce's) conception to benefit from entertaining it and challenging it. So far much of your argumentation extrapolates from semiosis as understood by the science of semeiotic (and its metaphysical implications) to a particular theological view of the cosmos, a position which seems to me to leave those of us who have not 'settled' on such a theological vision (especially one which seems to springboard from traditional theological notions) wondering if this grand extrapolation of science -- which perhaps for God centered people is adequate -- is yet convincing to we seekers who are questioning the adequacy of the vision of the monotheistic religions. Best. Gary R PS So much for my advocating shorter posts! On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 6:20 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Your follow-up questions are valid but frankly seem a bit jumbled. I have > taken a stab at rearranging them to facilitate offering my initial answers, > resulting in another lengthy post; once again, I will compensate for that > by refraining from posting anything else today. If I left something out > that you were hoping I would address, please say so. > > GR: Firstly, doesn't the OD (which you've argued is God) need to be known > by collateral observation or some sort of acquaintance? What sort of > collateral knowledge *could *the Universe-as-Vast-Sign have of its OD, > God? ... So who is reading the Vast Sign? > > > Peirce maintains that the *interpreter *of any sign must have collateral > acquaintance/experience/observation of its dynamical object in order to > understand it. An admittedly unusual feature of the universe as a sign is > that we are interpreting it from *within *it, so it is natural to wonder > how we can experience *anything *apart from it, and Peirce's response > seems to be that we have *direct *experience of God. He states that > synechism "is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God," of whom "we > must have a direct perception," and that people who doubt the reality of > such God do so only because "facts that stand before our face and eyes and > stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily > discerned" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332-3, 1892). He adds that "when a man has that > experience with which religion sets out, he has as good reason--putting > aside metaphysical subtilties--to believe in the living personality of God > as he has to believe in his own. Indeed, *belief *is a word inappropriate > to such direct perception" (CP 6.436, 1893); and he later refers to "the > soul’s consciousness of its relation to God" as "nothing more than > precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God" (CP 6.516, c. 1906). > > GR: And what is its IO? ... What's its IO? ... Again, the Sign has no > effect upon the OD, but isn't an OI required? Where is *that* located? > ... Where is the OI, or isn't there one or something like it (but how could > that be)? > > > The immediate object of any sign is internal to that sign and corresponds > to how it identifies its dynamical object. For example, the immediate > object of an ordinary word is whatever satisfies its verbal definition, > which is its immediate interpretant. Peirce consistently classifies the > universe as a symbol, but every symbol *involves* indices; and if my > overall hypothesis is correct, then the universe as a whole is also an > index of God by virtue of being created by God. As my forthcoming > *Transactions > *paper spells out, Peirce's cosmological argumentation is that the > co-reality of the three universes that together comprise our entire > existing universe calls for a rational explanation, and the only viable > candidate is the reality of "that which would Really be in any possible > state of things whatever" (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28). Accordingly, he > considers "God" to be "*the *definable proper name, signifying *Ens > necessarium*" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908)--unlike any other proper name, > its referent can be distinguished by a general description because there > could not possibly be more than one such necessary being. > > GR: Isn't the Vast Sign itself necessarily within a mind or something like > a mind if it is 'conceived' at all? ... Is the Cosmic Sign out of God's > Mind altogether? But if the mind I'm inquiring into is the Mind of God, > then how can the Vast Cosmic Sign stand apart from *that*? ... That is, > *where* is that Sign situated in relation to consciousness/mind? > > > As a perfect sign, the entire universe is *itself *a quasi-mind (EP > 2:545n25, 1906). God is not only its dynamical object, but also its > *utterer*; and just as any spoken or written sign *token *is external to > its utterer's mind, likewise our *existing *universe is external to God's > mind. On the other hand, the inexhaustible possibilities from which God > chooses some to actualize might be strictly internal to God's mind, > depending on how we understand Peirce's references to them as "Platonic > worlds" in his blackboard discussion (CP 6.208, 1898). In any case, our > ability to "read" God's mind is no different from our ability to "read" > other people's minds--we can only hear and read their external utterances, > not their internal thoughts. As Peirce says, "signs require at least two > Quasi-minds; a *Quasi-utterer* and a *Quasi-interpreter*; and although > these two are at one (*i.e.*, are one mind) in the sign itself, they must > nevertheless be distinct. In the Sign they are, so to say, *welded*" (CP > 4.551, 1906). Accordingly, our minds are distinct from God's mind but > "welded" to it in the one immense sign that God has uttered--"though we > cannot think any thought of God's, we can catch a fragment of His Thought, > as it were" (CP 6.502, c. 1906). > > GR: So, if not the mind of God (who stands apart from it and yet, you say, > somehow sustains and evolves it), then what? Again, how is the Cosmic Sign > determined by God when, I assume, no physical determination is meant in > your semiotic use of 'determine? > > > From our time-bound perspective *within *the universe, God is still > *constantly > *uttering it and will *continue *uttering it into the infinite future. "The > creation of the universe ... 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" (CP > 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903). Consequently, all our *dynamical *interpretants > are being determined by it as an *incomplete *sign, one that it is always > becoming *more *determinate by "working out its conclusions in living > realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). That is my understanding of God's > "determination" of the universe in this context, with physical > determination as a degenerate manifestation of semiosic determination. > Since God is an infinite being, God's *complete *self-disclosure is an > unattainable/asymptotic limit at which the universe as one immense sign would > be *perfectly *determinate, thereby realizing its *final *interpretant--"an > interpretant which would be the *perfect Truth*, the absolute Truth, and > as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe ... > the > ideal sign which should be quite perfect ... the fact that is not > abstracted but complete" (EP 2:304, NEM 4:239-40, 1901). > > GR: I have little doubt that some might see these kinds of questions and > this kind of discussion as akin to 'how many angels can sit on the head of > a pin'? > > > On the contrary, I think that they are important for establishing the > *internal > *coherence of my conception of the entire universe as one immense sign > whose dynamical object is God the Creator and whose final interpretant is > God completely revealed, which is obviously necessary (but likely not > sufficient) for its plausibility. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:35 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, List, >> >> Well, that's a lot to take in! So I'll just try a chunk of it today. I >> had written: >> >> >> GR: If it is a system, how is it that its object is viewed . . . as >> outside that system? >> >> >> JAS: According to Peirce, 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. >> Therefore, if the entire universe is a sign--as Peirce himself clearly >> maintained--then it *must *be determined by a dynamical object that is >> external to the entire universe, independent of the entire universe, and >> unaffected by the entire universe. >> >> I'm still a bit mystified. Firstly, doesn't the OD (which you've argued >> is God) need to be known by collateral observation or some sort of >> acquaintance? What sort of collateral knowledge *could* the >> Universe-as-Vast-Sign have of its OD, God? And what is its IO? Isn't the >> Vast Sign itself necessarily within a mind or something like a mind if it >> is 'conceived' at all? I would assume it can't have self-reference? So who >> is reading the Vast Sign? Is the Cosmic Sign out of God's Mind altogether. >> But if the mind I'm inquiring into is the Mind of God, then how can the >> Vast Cosmic Sign stand apart from *that*? What's its IO? That is, *where* >> is that Sign situated in relation to consciousness/mind? It surely can't be >> mind-less? Our own minds are evidence that it isn't. So, if not the mind of >> God (who stands apart from it and yet, you say, somehow sustains and >> evolves it), then what? Again, how is the Cosmic Sign determined by God >> when, I assume, no physical determination is meant in your semiotic use of >> 'determine? Again, the Sign has no effect upon the OD, but isn't an OI >> required? Where is *that* located? >> >> I know I could wait for your *Transactions *paper, but I've followed you >> to some extent so far and yet questions keep arising. I guess the thrust of >> the questions above is 'Where is Mind in all This?' And another big >> question the shorthand of which is: Where is the OI, or isn't there one or >> something like it (but how could that be)? >> >> I have little doubt that some might see these kinds of questions and this >> kind of discussion as akin to 'how many angels can sit on the head of a >> pin'? But for those of us who take metaphysical questions such as Peirce >> (and you) have posed, well we find that they stimulate thinking in us about >> cosmic spiritual matters of importance to us. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
