Jeff, List: JD: ... is there a Quasi-mind that is the *interpreter *of the Sign-Universe initially *uttered*?
According to Peirce, the "utterance" of the Universe is not an event that happened thousands or billions of years in the past--it is still very much in progress. 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 development of Reason. (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). The Universe as an Argument and a Perfect Sign is not something *static*; it is an ongoing "inferential process" of semeiosis, and Peirce considered its very *continuity *to be one of many hints suggesting the Reality of God. CSP: To my humble intelligence, the Rationality of Continuity, the chief character of the foundation stones of the real universe, adds another to the hundred already interpretable revelations of our Super-august and Gracious Father. (R S30 [Copy T:7]; c. 1906) Moreover, neither an utterer nor an interpreter is essential to a Sign--only an Object and an Interpretant (cf. EP 2:404-410; 1907). JD: ... I have no qualms about using the proper name God to refer to the Quasi-mind of the universe considered as a whole. Again, a Quasi-mind is itself a Sign (SS 195; 1906 Mar 9), so how do you square such an approach with Peirce's unambiguous statements on multiple occasions that every Sign is determined by an Object *other than itself*? What do you make of his emphatic assertions in four different manuscript drafts of "A Neglected Argument" (R 843) that the proper name "God" *does not *denote anything that is immanent in nature or the three Universes, but rather its/their "Sole Creator"? Do you simply disagree with him on these points? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:42 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary F, Jon S, List, > > For the sake of clarifying the questions, consider a few periods from the > history of the universe. Here is an abbreviated timeline: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe > Let me divide the story into the following three periods: > > > 1. Opening chapters: from the first moments of the Planck era to the > dark ages. > 2. Middle Chapters: from the beginning of star formation to the > present age. > 3. Future Chapters: from the near future to the distant future. > > The questions might be reformulated in the following way. For the first of > these periods, is there a Quasi-mind that is the *interpreter* of the > Sign-Universe initially *uttered? *In what sense might such a > Quasi-mind which is realized, perhaps, in the lawful habits that are > taking shape in each chapter, speaking to itself? As a great body called > the cosmos, it appears that the universe has undergone a remarkable series > of metamorphoses over the course of its evolution. As the body of the > universe as a whole has evolved, in what manner might the parts of that > body be communicating information, meaning or purpose in relation to the > other parts and to the larger whole of that body? In that first period, is > the ongoing creation of more or less ordered relations in the three > universes of possible experience given direction by some kind of ideal? > Did such an all-encompassing ideal itself evolve? How did it take shape? > > Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the operation of chance > itself has a kind of living character--especially insofar as we imagine > that the seeds of the growth of order were spread throughout the universe > of chance, conceived in terms of its potential qualities, from the start? > Furthermore, let us assume that the ongoing sprouting and growth of the > seeds of order is governed by a law of mind in virtue of which the > qualities of the parts of the cosmos--at every scale--grow in their > relations to one another in virtue of their affectability and, > furthermore, that those facts that do occur at any time tend to increase > the odds of what might happen next. > > > The operation of this law of mind might be understood, from a more > external point of view, in terms of its governance of a universe of facts. > The formation and growth of the habits governing these facts happens via a > process of association by resemblance and contiguity. Or, from a more > internal point of view, we might understand the operation of the law of > mind as the governance of the laws of nature--considered as representations > in a Quasi-mind--via patterns of synthetic inference in that are abductive > and inductive in character. How do these hypotheses concerning the > priority of the law of mind *vis a vis* all other laws shape our > understanding of the questions posed above? > > > Turning now to the middle period when galaxies, stars and solar systems > having biological forms of life evolved, how might we understand the questions > and hypotheses considered above? Can the questions be clarified further? Do > the hypotheses that are offered as possible answers to the questions take a > different shape when it comes to explaining the evolution of the forms of > order that are governing the universe in this period? Do the questions > and hypotheses take yet a different shape as we look to the near and > distant future? > > > Insofar as some of us in the community of inquiry accept the sorts of > hypotheses listed above, I have no qualms about using the proper name God > to refer to the Quasi-mind of the universe considered as a whole. As a > matter of fact, my own inquiries in philosophy are shaped by such grand > hypothesis. In turn, I hope that my actions and the cultivation of my > habits of feeling are similarly guided. > > > For those who do have qualms about the use of that proper name, I'm also > fine if they prefer to call it the Quasi-mind of the universe. If we adopt > the hypotheses that Peirce recommends as plausible, then this great > Quasi-mind is growing in its reasonableness as the cosmos comes to be > governed by richer systems of physical, chemical, biological and other > types of laws. While these aren't the only hypotheses available to explain > the ongoing evolution of the cosmos, they do form a set of conjectures that > I find particularly attractive. As such, I'd be interested in seeing how > those hypotheses might be used to frame the more detailed explanations > being developed in the special sciences to explain the origins of (1) physical > order, (2) life and (3) self-controlled forms of thought in nature. > > > Yours, > > > Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 >
----------------------------- 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 .
