[My own recently developed formulation is that the universe is a Sign uttered by God, whose Object is God Himself and whose Interpretant is our knowledge of Him. In other words, our existing universe of continuous space-time is *itself *a Sign, and our best science currently confirms that it is growing; although ...]
I found your note very stimulating and these comments are not to be taken as anything but a spontaneous response to these words. I do not think signs can or should be associated with words save as we appropriate signs and give them our words. I see the sign as independent and free of this process. Uttered was the word that stopped me. Also while the universe might be anything the One creates I take signs to be not merely plural but infinite, indeed a means by which we are permanently disabused about inferring more than we are able to gather from signs. They are a vote for feeling, the subjective, the poetic. They come from whence we do not know and go whence we do not know.Our best science has hardly made up its mind what it believes even though Ken Wilber wrote a book about the prevalent mysticism among the founding fathers of physics. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:32 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: I have a slight bit of unease with your substitution of Peirce's > comment that we ought to say that "we are in thought, and not thoughts are > in us" ... A more exact substitution would be that "our Quasi-minds are in > semiosis and not that semiosis (i.e., the activity of signs) is in our > Quasi-minds." > > > I disagree; I take it as very deliberate that Peirce switched from *thought > *(singular) to *thoughts *(plural)--thought is *continuous*, thoughts are > *discrete*; thought corresponds to *semiosis* (singular), thoughts > correspond to *signs* (plural). > > GR: I wonder how Peirce's remark that signs requiring "at least two > Quasi-minds" which "are. . .welded" "in the sign itself, yet must > nevertheless be *distinct*" (emphasis added) affects your theory. > > > I consider that remark (CP 4.551; 1906) to be fully consistent with what I > am saying--Peirce was talking about discrete signs (plural), not continuous > semiosis (singular), although he hinted at the latter when he said that the > two Quasi-minds "are at one (*i.e.*, are one mind) in the sign itself." > We distinguish between the Quasi-utterer and the Quasi-interpreter for the > sake of analysis, as a simple and familiar context for semiosis--a > dialogue, whether between two people or within one's own (Quasi-)mind over > time. > > GR: But further, something vague, which has not yet fully taken form as a > question, has been troubling me as regards your suggestion of semiosic > continuity. It has to do with Peirce's famous dictum that 'symbols grow'. > > > What does it mean for a Symbol (or other Sign) to grow? For one thing, > "An interpretant of a symbol is an outgrowth of the symbol" (EP 2:322; > 1904). I suggest accordingly that as a result of continuous semiosis, the > *actual > *state of information in the universe--i.e., the aggregate of all *Informed > *Breadth and Depth, consisting of all Dynamic Objects and Dynamic > Interpretants, respectively--is constantly increasing. > > CSP: The informed breadth and depth suppose a state of information which > lies somewhere between two imaginary extremes. These are, first, the state > in which no fact would be known, but only the meaning of terms; and, > second, the state in which the information would amount to an absolute > intuition of all there is, so that the things we should know would be the > very substances themselves, and the qualities we should know would be the > very concrete forms themselves. This suggests two other sorts of breadth > and depth corresponding to these two states of information, and which I > shall term respectively the *essential* and the *substantial *breadth and > depth. (CP 2.409; 1867) > > > The final cause of all semiosis is *Substantial *Breadth and Depth, "the > absolute Truth ... the final interpretant of every sign" (EP 2:304; 1904), > the ultimate opinion of an infinite community after infinite inquiry, what > Richard Kenneth Atkins called "cognitive welding"--a *regulative ideal* > that will never *actually *be attained, such that the growth of Signs > will *still *be ongoing at *any *assignable future date. > > CSP: A symbol is an embryonic reality endowed with power of growth into > the very truth, the very entelechy of reality. (EP 2:322; 1904) > > > CSP: The very being of the General, of Reason, *consists *in its > governing individual events. So, then, the essence of Reason is such that > its being never can have been completely perfected. It always must be in a > state of incipiency, of growth ... So, then, the development of Reason > requires as a part of it the occurrence of more individual events than ever > can occur ... 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 development of > Reason. (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903) > > > Consistent with the end of that last passage, I take Peirce quite > literally where he wrote that "the universe is a vast representamen, a > great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living > realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193; 1903). My own recently developed > formulation is that the universe is a Sign uttered by God, whose Object is > God Himself and whose Interpretant is our knowledge of Him. In other > words, our existing universe of continuous space-time is *itself *a Sign, > and our best science currently confirms that it is growing; although ... > > GR: Now while it is generally agreed that space is expanding, I'm not > sure that one could same the same of time ... But while both are > continuous, individually at least, neither can be said, I think, to be > growing. > > > What is the basis for drawing a distinction here between "expanding" and > "growing" as applied to space? Must we likewise distinguish between > "passing" and "growing" as applied to time? On the contrary, since we can > now conceptualize time as a fourth dimension of continuous space-time, > rather than something *separate *from space, it seems to me that its > passage corresponds to expansion along a single spatial dimension; so we > should view space-time *as a whole* to be expanding, not just space as > somehow *isolated *from time. > > GR: Now it seems to me that semiosis is more like evolution than either > space or time taken separately even given Einstein's theory of space-time > or the solution of famous logical paradoxes. > > > The parallel that Peirce drew in the originally quoted comment was not > between thought/semiosis and space, time, or even space-time; it was > between thought/semiosis and motion *through* space-time. I iterated > several drafts of my initial post before sending it, and the first few > ended with a question--if individual (Quasi-)minds correspond to physical > bodies, thought/semiosis (singular) corresponds to continuous motion, and > thoughts/signs (plural) correspond to discrete points at discrete instants, > what is the *medium *that corresponds to space-time? I ultimately > omitted it after deciding that either (a) this is where the analogy breaks > down, or (b) space-time is *also* the medium for semiosis, in the sense > that Signs as *real *(and continuous) Types are embodied/manifested in > Instances as *actual* (and discrete) Tokens. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:38 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, list, >> >> I've been studying your post for the past couple of days and find your >> suggestion that, just as time and space are continuous, so is semiosis, >> most interesting. I have a slight bit of unease with your substitution of >> Peirce's comment that we ought to say that "we are in thought, and not >> thoughts are in us" (JAS: "we ought to say that our individual >> (Quasi-)minds are in semiosis, and not that signs are in our individual >> (Quasi-)minds"). A more exact substitution would be that "our >> Quasi-minds are in semiosis and not that semiosis (i.e., the activity of >> signs) is in our Quasi-minds." >> >> Reflecting on this reminded me that Peirce wrote: >> >> Admitting that connected Signs must have a Quasi-mind, it may further be >> declared that there can be no isolated sign. Moreover, 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 * >> (Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism, 1906, CP 4.551). >> >> >> I wonder how Peirce's remark that signs requiring "at least two >> Quasi-minds" which "are. . .welded" "in the sign itself, yet must >> nevertheless be *distinct*" (emphasis added) affects your theory. That >> is, does this distinction between "Quasi-utterer" and "Quasi-interpreter" >> add a problematic element to your suggestions of the continuous character >> of semiosis and that of our Quasi-minds being more in semiosis than the >> other way around? Perhaps your unpacking the Peirce quotation above would >> help me in this matter. >> >> But further, something vague, which has not yet fully taken form as a >> question, has been troubling me as regards your suggestion of semiosic >> continuity. It has to do with Peirce's famous dictum that 'symbols grow'. >> >> Now while it is generally agreed that space is expanding, I'm not sure >> that one could same the same of time (except in some vague sense in which >> the piling on of innumerable discrete instances might represent some >> abstract sort of expansion). But while both are continuous, individually at >> least, neither can be said, I think, to be growing. >> >> On the other hand evolution (and, generally, life itself) concerns growth >> and, *at least* in its biological forms, requires *both* space and time. >> Now it seems to me that semiosis is more like evolution than either space >> or time taken separately even given Einstein's theory of space-time or the >> solution of famous logical paradoxes. >> >> Well, that's about as far as I've been able to get with this. While the >> exact question lies below my own conscious threshold. I'm hoping that >> perhaps you'll be able to discern what it is that's troubling me and >> address it. And knowing something of your approach to inquiry, I'm hoping >> that just taking up my vague not-quite-questions might prove to be of >> assistance in honing your novel theory. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
