Jon, list, Jon wrote:
I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something *greater than *but still somehow *inclusive of *the Sign; and he also stated plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining unaffected". . . One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign (Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are *wholly* unique, that they are atypical, even peculiar among *all* other Signs and Objects: that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to speak, and in their relationship. As for *panentheism*, it is generally held that it is an attempt to avoid *separating *God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while at the same time not *identifying* God with the universe (pantheism). Pan*en*theism, as you know, holds that God not only *pervades* the cosmos and all that this universe includes and involves, but also *transcends* it in the sense of simultaneously being beyond space and time. [In my view it is *possible *that the God of *all possible Universes* this Cosmos is not necessarily to be identified with the *God of our Universe*. I'll admit, however, that that sounds a bit odd even to me; yet I've been entertaining the idea for many years now (this is not, btw, an argument for the multi-universe theories prevalent in our time)]. JAS: Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God, but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe *warranted *those views about God--perhaps even *required *them. I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs and the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the theistic view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the pantheistic view has been generally debunked, perhaps the panentheistic notion that God creates but *also* transcends space and time can help in your "attempt to revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion." Finally, in my view, historically and to this day, our idea of God has been far too small, far too limited, and often dogmatic and doctrinaire, striking some (but not all) scientists as at least naive and typically incompatible with science. I think these limited views of God have in ways contributed to many of the "wicked problems" of our world, not the least of which is the chasm that has been developing for centuries between science and religion. It should be noted, however, that science, at least as it has led to the development of socially and environmentally problematic technologies (for example, gun powder, fossil fuels, Facebook), has itself contributed to the emergence of a number of horrifying"wicked problems. I believe that Peirce's science, phenomenology, logic as semeiotic, cosmology, scientific metaphysics, and theological insights might in time help us to bridge the gap between religion and science, perhaps to finally contribute evenkmj to solving some of those "wicked problems." Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Thank you for your very kind words. I look forward to further feedback > and discussion. > > I actually debated formatting the summary just as you proposed, but > ultimately decided to add the fourth bullet as tacit acknowledgement that > identifying God as the Object that determines the Universe as a Sign is not > strictly entailed by the syllogism itself. Instead, it follows from the > other considerations that I highlighted toward the end of my original post. > > I am curious to learn exactly how you (or others) would define panentheism > in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the > major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. > Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and > independent of the sign" (R 145; 1905), rather than something *greater > than *but still somehow *inclusive of *the Sign; and he also stated > plainly, "In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the > Object remaining unaffected" (EP 2:544n22; 1906). > > Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God, but > also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe > *warranted *those views about God--perhaps even *required *them. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:56 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon, list, >> >> This is, in my opinion, a most impressive semeiotic argument (really, an >> extended *argumentation* in Peirce's sense) for the Reality of God. This >> is to say that it would seem to me to be an explication of Peirce's (and, I >> assume, your) religious views as they relate to his sign theory, >> representing a kind of outline of a *Peircean semeiotic theology (*of >> course Peirce himself sometimes argued *contra* the theologians). It >> brings together, at least as far as I can tell, *the most salient >> passages *in Peirce relating to that argument in a forceful logical tour >> de force. I have read many papers and several books on Peirce's religious >> views, but I have found them all significantly wanting in some respects. >> So, I'm eagerly anticipating studying your argumentation to see how it >> holds up upon examination. >> >> For now, my only very, very slight 'adjustment' to your post would be to >> make your four summary points, three, since they obviously constitute a >> syllogism. So: >> >> - Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. >> - The entire Universe is a Sign. >> - Therefore, the entire Universe is determined by an Object other >> than itself; and this we call God. >> >> I can imagine that you'll get all sorts of push back from this deductive >> argument, for example, from those who consider themselves panentheists. But >> the response to that *sort *of difference of opinion is simply that what >> you're arguing for is *Peirce's view of the matter*, one which sees God >> as the Creator of the Three Universes; and how this is clearly intimately >> tied up with his theory of signs. >> >> As for purely logical issues that may arise upon examination of your >> deductive argument, you'll have to take these as they come, I suppose. And >> some will surely argue that such a deductive argument can only be of so >> much value since, as they might see it, faith in God is not essentially a >> logical matter. But for those philosophers and semioticians who already >> hold a Creator view of God, the argument surely offers considerable support. >> >> I have only read your argument twice so far, and have not yet seen any >> logical flaws; of course others may. However, the very clarity of your >> argumentation makes me wonder anew about my own view of this matter. I >> have, perhaps, once again begun to reflect on my own tendencies toward >> panentheism. I had previously thought that my religious views were quite >> close to Peirce's. But since I find your argument as following logically >> and naturally from Peirce's semeiotic, the intra-personal tension it's >> creating--between theism and panentheism--can only be of value to me in the >> long run. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >> *718 482-5690* >> >>>
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
