List,
I do not think, that a sign has to do with truth (aka perfection, nonquasiness, geninunity...). It has to do with force, need, or volition, depending on the utterer-interpreter-weldedness, whether it/she/he/they is/are nonorganic, organic, or nervous. Truth is a concept of transcendental philosophy, but not of sign theory, I think. Best, Helmut
 
 10. März 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
 "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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.
   
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. 
   
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

 
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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