Dear Jon S,
I enjoyed reading your Additament article.
In your post from this morning you say: " As embodied metaphysical
Quasi-minds, we are both constituents and interpreters of the Universe as
God's great Symbol and Argument. Furthermore, as morally responsible
Persons, we can also be contributors to it--we have the opportunity (and
privilege) to participate voluntarily in God's still-unfolding creative
activity. The Perfect Sign thus serves as an ideal, or regulative hope,
which would be achieved if all of us were to become fully welded with the
eternal Mind who is our Creator."
Accepting for the moment the context of your argument, I'm wondering,
if I understand you correctly, why you seem to limit human contribution to
ongoing creation to "morally responsible Persons," and participation to
"voluntarily." What about "aesthetically expressive Persons" contributing,
and participating, say, from a deeply enraptured wonder beyond simply
voluntary?
And, and I realize I am pushing it, what about the possibility of
"morally irresponsible Persons," or even of evil as a contributor to
ongoing creation? I realize this is an offputting idea, it is for me. But
Hillary Putnam quoted a passage from a Peirce unpublished manuscript (I
don't have its number): "The only solution to the problem of evil is to
recognize that the Supreme Love embraces hate as a variety of itself, and
that sin is a creation of God, and as such, is good in certain stage[s] of
development. God delights in evil."
Gene Halton
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> List:
>
> If my latest hypothesis is correct that the Universe is the Perfect Sign,
> what would be its Object? What is perpetually acting upon it with new
> Signs that give it fresh energy and kindle its previously dormant energy?
> What has the absolute freedom to introduce spontaneous changes into it? In
> other words, what *sustains* the Universe as something that is living and
> growing, rather than succumbing to "the complete induration of habit
> reducing the free play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to
> complete death" (CP 6.201; 1898)?
>
>
>
> CSP: ... the Universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's
> purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol
> [3ns] must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions [2ns]
> and its Icons of Qualities [1ns]; and such part as these reactions and
> these qualities play in an argument, that they of course play in the
> Universe, that Universe being precisely an argument. (CP 5.119, EP
> 2:193-194; 1903)
>
>
>
> Consistent with the conclusion of my recently published essay, "A
> Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of
> God," the Dynamic Object of the Universe as the Perfect Sign is its perfect
> Utterer, *God Himself*, infinitely incomprehensible to us. Its Immediate
> Object is *God's purpose*, which is the development of Reason, including
> the growth of our knowledge of God and of this Universe that He has
> created--*and is still creating*.
>
>
>
> CSP: This development of Reason consists, you will observe, in
> embodiment, that is, in manifestation. The creation of the universe, which
> 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, is this very developement of
> Reason. I do not see how one can have a more satisfying ideal of the
> admirable than the development of Reason so understood. The one thing whose
> admirableness is not due to an ulterior Reason is Reason itself
> comprehended in all its fullness, so far as we can comprehend it. (CP
> 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903)
>
>
>
> This is the *summum bonum* in accordance with the normative science of
> esthetics. Peirce went on to draw the corresponding ethical and logical
> implications, since what he described as "Practice" and "Theory" in EP
> 2:304 correspond to "embodiment" and "manifestation" here, respectively.
>
>
>
> CSP: Under this conception, the ideal of conduct will be to execute our
> little function in the operation of the creation by giving a hand toward
> rendering the world more reasonable whenever, as the slang is, it is "up to
> us" to do so. In logic, it will be observed that knowledge is
> reasonableness; and the ideal of reasoning will be to follow such methods
> as must develop knowledge the most speedily. (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903)
>
>
>
> As embodied metaphysical Quasi-minds, we are both *constituents* and
> *interpreters* of the Universe as God's great Symbol and Argument.
> Furthermore,
> as morally responsible Persons, we can also be *contributors* to it--we
> have the opportunity (and privilege) to participate *voluntarily *in
> God's still-unfolding creative activity. The Perfect Sign thus serves as
> an ideal, or regulative hope, which *would* be achieved if all of us
> *were* to become fully welded with the eternal Mind who is our Creator.
>
> 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
> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
