Gary R., List: GR: Your answer refers to *human *responses, whereas my question concerns the Universe as a whole
The universe as a whole is the sign *itself*, while collateral acquaintance/experience/observation pertains to *interpreters *of any sign. You asked "who is reading the Vast Sign," and my answer is that we humans are--we are interpreting the entire universe as a sign, so we need collateral acquaintance/experience/observation of its dynamical object in order to understand it. Peirce maintains--and I agree--that *everyone *directly perceives/experiences God, at least vaguely, whether they recognize it or not. GR: 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 inquiring at the cosmic level, the universe-as-a- whole, I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced. As I said, "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." Its immediate object is *how* it points beyond itself, and my example is its *contingent *nature requiring the reality of a *necessary *being as the only rational explanation for its own reality. I also noted that it is impossible for there to be more than one such necessary being, which is why "God" is the only *definable *proper name. GR: Would you give some other examples of an OD also being the utterer of a sign? The author of an autobiography is both the utterer and the dynamical object of that sign. Whenever I talk about myself, I am both the utterer and the dynamical object of those signs, including this very sentence. Peirce refers to the dynamical object as "the essential ingredient of the utterer" because it is necessary for *every *sign, including those that have no utterer (EP 2:404, 1907). GR: 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. Peirce does not make a sharp distinction between the two. Quoting the referenced sentence more fully, "the discoveries of science, their enabling us to *predict *what will be the course of nature, is proof conclusive that, 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). This is at the end of the same paragraph where he refers to God as "that analogue of a mind" whom we can get to know through "contemplation and study of the physico-psychical universe," as if it were a book and God were its author--"just as long study of the works of Aristotle may make him an acquaintance." GR: So God's purpose would seem to lead us over the millenia to "the perfect Truth" which "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. I suggested that God's purpose is increasingly definite self-disclosure, which will never be complete since God is an infinite being. If this is correct, then people who deny the reality of God or misunderstand God's nature are *misinterpreting* the universe as a sign, but I do not see how this leaves them "bereft of meaning" altogether. GR: One does not have to submit to your (and, you've well argued, Peirce's) conception to benefit from entertaining it and challenging it. I agree and did not intend to imply otherwise. GR: 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. Again, what I am proposing is not "a particular *theological *view of the cosmos," and it is not ultimately a matter of my *personal* beliefs about God (nor Peirce's). It is a comprehensive *metaphysical *hypothesis, grounded in Peirce's semeiotic. After all, as I have quoted him several times now, "Metaphysics consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of logical [i.e., semiotic] principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being" (CP 1.487, c. 1896). In Peirce's architectonic classification of the sciences, the three branches of metaphysics are "i, General Metaphysics, or Ontology; ii, Psychical, or Religious, Metaphysics ... and iii, Physical Metaphysics" (CP 1.192, 1903). I suggest rearranging these as (1) ontology, (2) physical cosmology, and (3) psychical cosmology to be more consistent with his three categories. My request of anyone who is interested in this topic--including those who, for whatever reason, are inclined to rule out theism from the start--is to evaluate my admittedly ambitious hypothesis in accordance with each of them in turn. 1. Is it plausible that the one root of all being is the being of a sign--not isolated, but triadic; not existing, but governing instances of signs and events of semiosis? If not, why not? 2. Is it plausible that the entire universe is a hyperbolic semiosic continuum, proceeding from absolute indeterminacy in the infinite past toward absolute determinacy in the infinite future? If not, why not? 3. Is it plausible that the entire universe is one immense sign, with God the Creator as its dynamical object and God completely revealed as its final interpretant? If not, why not? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:06 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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! >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
