Gary F., List: Put another way, "the pragmaticist does not make the *summum bonum* to consist in action, but makes it to consist in that process of evolution whereby the existent comes more and more to embody those generals which were just now said to be *destined*, which is what we strive to express in calling them *reasonable*" (CP 5.433, EP 2:343, 1905); and "Existence, then, is a special mode of reality, which, whatever other characteristics it possesses, has that of being absolutely determinate" (CP 6.349, 1902). So, the growth of concrete reasonableness is the ongoing existential embodiment of real generals, i.e., the conversion of indeterminate conditional necessities into determinate individual actualities as the contingent future is constantly becoming the accomplished past at the nascent present.
Thanks again, Jon On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary F., List: > > I did not claim "that absolute determinacy is the ideal *summum bonum*," > I said that according to Peirce, concrete reasonableness is the *summum > bonum* and utter determinacy is the state that the universe *would *reach > as an ideal limit in the infinite future, but never actually *will *reach. > This follows from his statement in KS, as quoted during your 10-minute > presentation, that "the first of all logical principles is that the > indeterminate should determine itself as best it may" (EP 2:324). The > corresponding "perfect knowledge" is what an infinite community *would > *believe > after infinite inquiry--again, an ideal limit, not an actual achievement. > > Of course, the choice of concrete reasonableness as the *summum bonum* is > not at all arbitrary. Peirce describes it as "a state of things that > *reasonably > recommends itself in itself* aside from any ulterior consideration" (CP > 5.130, EP 2:201, 1903), "the state of things which is most admirable in > itself regardless of any ulterior reason" (CP 1.611, EP 2:253, 1903), and > "that which is objectively admirable without any ulterior reason" (CP > 1.191, EP 2:260, 1903). In summary, "The only desirable object which is > quite satisfactory in itself without any ulterior reason for desiring it, > is the reasonable itself. I do not mean to put this forward as a > demonstration; because, like all demonstrations about such matters, it > would be a mere quibble, a sheaf of fallacies. I maintain simply that it is > an experiential truth" (CP 8.140, EP 2:60, 1901). > > As we have discussed in the past, I understand "the perfect sign" that > Peirce describes in EP 2:545n25 (1906) to be the entire universe; "perfect" > in this context is roughly synonymous with "complete," not "flawless." As a > quasi-mind, he says that it "must evidently have, like anything else, its > special qualities of susceptibility to determination"; or as he puts it > elsewhere, "The quasi-mind is itself a sign, a determinable sign" (SS 195, > 1906). As such, it is constantly becoming *more *determinate, which is > not at all synonymous with being "increasingly mindless." Again, the ideal > limit of *utter *determinacy will never *actually *be reached--"an > absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at > last crystallized in the infinitely distant future" (CP 6.33, EP 1:297, > 1891). > > Best I can tell, Peirce's "reduction to three of the possible sentiments > toward the whole of the universe" is not a trichotomy in accordance with > his three categories. Instead, it is an application of a > mathematical/logical principle that he discusses in several other > writings--any sequence is either elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic based > on whether the closed curve representing it in projective geometry > intersects the line representing infinity at zero, one, or two points. I > discuss this in detail, including its implications for time and cosmology, > in sections 6-7 of my "Temporal Synechism" paper. As I said before, our > reasoning/learning *about *the universe is recursive, but the *overall > *process > of semiosis is hyperbolic--from the dynamical object through the sign > toward the final interpretant, just like time flows from the past through > the present toward the future. > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 8:44 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > >> Jon, I think that’s a fair description of Peirce’s views (at that stage >> of his life anyway). But you’ve given no reason why you or anyone else >> *should* share the view that absolute determinacy is the ideal *summum >> bonum*, or is *better* than a less determinate state of things, *or* >> that the universe really tends to move in that direction. >> >> The choice of utter determinacy as the highest esthetic value is utterly >> arbitrary. It would also entail the death of *semiosis* (along with >> everything that has any life in it), and since all thought and all >> knowledge is in signs, it would be the end of knowledge. If that is what >> you mean by “perfect knowledge,” why would it be esthetically preferable to >> the “perfect sign” as Peirce describes it >> <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/mns.htm#onesign>? If the perfect sign is a >> “quasi-mind,” then an increasingly determinate universe would be >> increasingly mindless. Is that really an optimistic outlook? >> >> Besides, if the laws of nature are evolving, as Peirce held, why wouldn’t >> the ideal *summum bonum* also be evolving? >> >> The “cheerful hope” of the pure scientist that her investigations will >> lead the greater community closer to the whole truth is a psychological >> characteristic that can’t be reasonably extrapolated to the ultimate >> purpose of the universe — or even to the esthetic ideal of pragmatism, in >> my opinion. It’s a concession by Peirce to linear thinking. And I think his >> reduction to three of the possible sentiments toward the whole of the >> universe one instance where he “forces divisions to a Procrustean bed of >> trichotomy” (CP1.568). >> >> Love, gary >> >> Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg >> >> } Now we never can know precisely what we mean by any description >> whatever. [Peirce, CP 7.119] { >> >> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
