When Peirce is unified with Reality.

CP 1.582. "I begin, then, with simple satisfactions of the moment. The most immediate of these is the simple satisfaction of a direct instinct. I am thirsty and I want a drink. Now our shifty witness, consciousness, is very ready with her answer that a drink is good but that momentary satisfactions are not the only good. Let us not be in haste to accept either answer. Men might easily argue -- indeed, do argue -- that there can be no other good than the satisfaction of the moment's desire. But the moment I hear that word can used, where nothing in the world is pertinent but observations of what is, I cast the judgment aside as worthless. For "cannot be" means "not in accordance with a hypothetical construction" intended, this time, to represent human nature. But I do not care about hypothetical constructions. I just want to know whether a man does ever find any other satisfaction than the simple satisfaction of the moment. If there is nothing good but the simple satisfaction of this moment, and all other moments are nothing, I must be in a state of perfect satisfaction or perfect dissatisfaction. Is that so? Obviously not: I may wish for something in spite of accompanying disadvantages. Therefore, the simple satisfaction of the moment is not all. There is at least complexity. Now can the simple satisfaction of the moment be, in itself, any good at all? Here consciousness is emphatic in her reply that the drink is good, however small a good. But there can be no harm in a little cross-examination of the witness. An absolutely simple satisfaction will involve no comparison, no measure, no degree. It will be perfect, if it exists at all. Now let be supposed that it could be proved to you that, I will not say for a moment only, but for the entire duration of a millionth of a second, you were to enjoy a simple satisfaction, say that of an agreeable color sensation, with no effects whatever of any kind, and of course no memory of it. Then, since this satisfaction would be perfect and immeasurable, and would be, O Consciousness, you say, a good, at how much would you value it? How many years of purgatory would you be willing to endure for the sake of it? Come, speak up. Would you endure five minutes of toothache? For the knowledge that you had, or were about to have, the strange experience, perhaps. But this would be an effect. You must suppose that you were to be utterly ignorant of whether you had, or were about to have, any such feeling. Would it not be precisely the same thing as if this had happened to some other being, say to a mosquito, with this difference, that the mosquito is your neighbor, with whom you have some grain of sympathy while this isolated instant would really have no existence at all? I think I hear you murmur that an absolutely simple satisfaction would be an absurdity. Then such satisfaction is no part of the good. Still, it might be said that this result is owing to the absurd hypothesis of simplicity."

I do not think the substance of this bears any need for interpretation. My goal in publishing it is twofold. Maybe onefold.

Peirce is obviously giving consciousness massive authority. It is the arbiter of right and wrong. And so it is. And it is within so we are part of the entirety that determines right and wrong and everything else.

There is also familiarity in every sense of the word. Peirce is having a friendly back and forth with One who is both himself and the society which reads him and the All which is his identity when he is unified with Reality.