The main problem with this is that one can be a realist without assuming we
have reached a point at which reality as a state of actual existence is
realized. It is a paradox admittedly, but I believe fundamental to Peirce
to assume things as real that are not fully realized and to see continuity
as the slow and fallible process of moving toward realization. We are part
of moving reality.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
>
>
> ‘man is a sign.’
>
>
>
> *The purpose of every sign is* to express "fact," and by being joined
> with other signs, *to approach as nearly as possible* to determining 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.
>
>
>
> *Absolute truth* “is the *agreement* of the content of cognition with the
> actuality.” Uberweg.
>
>
>
> *Absolute horizon*.  “The *congruence* of the limits of human cognition
> with the limits of collective human perfection in general.”  Kant, Logik,
> Einleitung VI, p. 207.
>
>
>
> Indeed all propositions refer to one and the same determinately singular
> subject, well understood *between all utterers and interpreters*, namely,
> to the Truth, which is the universe of all universes, and is assumed on all
> hands to be real.
>
>
>
> .. we ought to say that we are in thought and not that thoughts are in us.
>
>
> For our aim is not to know what truth is but to *be* truthful..
>
>
>
> There is but one individual, or completely determinate, state of things,
> namely, the all of reality.
>
>
>
> “Eschenmayer asserts that God is infinitely higher than the absolute,
> which is only the last object of knowledge, while God is only an object of
> faith, which is infinitely higher than knowledge.”
>
>
>
> Absolute philosophy.  A philosophy which is absolute knowledge, if true.
> (Selections mostly from Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological
> Edition, Volume 2)
>
>
>
> My final words are about my title. Why *contrite* fallibilism? As far as
> I know *Peirce used that expression, *“contrite fallibilism”,* only once*,
> in the quotation I gave earlier where he said that it was “out of a
> contrite fallibilism, combined with a high faith in the reality
> of knowledge, and an intense desire to find things out”, that all of his
> philosophy had grown (CP 1.13-14). ~Nathan Houser
> Hth and Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a needless and unproductive complexification of matters
>> Peirce himself did not see as important. The term perfect sign does not
>> appear in CP. The term perfect is used in all manner of contexts but less
>> than 100 times. There are over 1000 references to signs but none is
>> preceded by the word perfect. I think it inhibits philosophy itself to
>> regard a term not fundamental to an author's understanding as somehow worth
>> extended treatment as something that will somehow advance u thinking.
>> Perhaps we should rate subjects by their prominence in Peirce's own
>> lexicon.
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> List:
>>>
>>>
>>> Having gotten a better handle on Peirce's concept of a Quasi-mind, we
>>> can now make another attempt at sorting out what he meant by "perfect sign"
>>> in EP 2:545n25.  Here is a summary of what that text tells us about it.
>>>
>>>    - It is the aggregate formed by a Sign and all the Signs that its
>>>    occurrence carries with it, and involves the present existence of no 
>>> other
>>>    Sign except those that are its ingredients.
>>>    - It is not in a statical condition, because it is an existent that
>>>    acts; and whatever acts, changes.
>>>    - Its every real ingredient is aging, its energy of action upon the
>>>    Interpretant is running low, its sharp edges are wearing down, and its
>>>    outlines are becoming more indefinite.
>>>    - It is perpetually being acted upon by its Object, receiving from
>>>    it the accretions of new Signs that bring it fresh energy and kindle the
>>>    energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant.
>>>    - It constantly undergoes spontaneous changes that do not happen by
>>>    its will, but are phenomena of growth.
>>>    - It is a Quasi-mind and the Sheet of Assertion of Existential
>>>    Graphs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Perfect Sign involves the *present *existence (2ns) of *only* those
>>> Signs that comprise it, which are aging and wearing down; yet it continues
>>> receiving accretions of *new *Signs (3ns) from its Object and
>>> undergoing *spontaneous *changes (1ns).  After further contemplation, I
>>> now believe that Peirce was describing *the same thing* here as in the
>>> passage about "the ideal sign" that I have mentioned previously, which he
>>> wrote a couple of years earlier.
>>>
>>>
>>> CSP:  What we call a "fact" is something having the structure of a
>>> proposition, but supposed to be an element of the very universe itself.
>>> The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with
>>> other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining 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. 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.
>>> (EP 2:304; 1904)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Contrary to my previous hypothesis, "Perfect Sign" is *not* synonymous
>>> with "Quasi-mind"; instead, it designates the Truth that corresponds to the
>>> Universe.  As such, it also satisfies the last bullet above, since the
>>> Sheet of Assertion or Phemic Sheet is not only a Quasi-mind, but also "a
>>> Seme of *The Truth*, that is, of the widest Universe of Reality" (CP
>>> 4.553; 1906).  Of course, this does not at all entail that a Quasi-mind
>>> and the Universe are the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CSP:  … one and the same construction may be, when regarded in two
>>> different ways, two altogether different diagrams; and that to which it
>>> testifies in the one capacity, it must not be considered as testifying to
>>> in the other capacity. For example, the Entire Existential Graph of a
>>> Phemic Sheet, in any state of it, is a Diagram of the logical Universe, as
>>> it is also a Diagram of a Quasi-mind; but it must not, on *that*
>>> account, be considered as testifying to the identity of those two. It is
>>> like a telescope eye piece which at one focus exhibits a star at which the
>>> instrument is pointed, and at another exhibits all the faults of the
>>> objective lens. (NEM 4:324; 1906)
>>>
>>> Any comments?  I am guessing that these topics must simply not be of
>>> much interest, or people are just very busy these days, since I find it
>>> hard to believe that everyone agrees with everything I have been posting.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe
>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce
>> -l/peirce-l.htm .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to