Gary R., List: GR: 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.
I agree. As Aquinas also recognized, all our language about God is necessarily *analogical *to some degree. GR: 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. Yes, but if we agree that Peirce considered the Universe to be a Sign, then I still do not see how panentheism can be reconciled with his explicit descriptions of the Object as *external *to, *independent *of, and *unaffected *by the Sign. GR: ... 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." That burden must be borne by a panentheist, or at least someone who wants to classify Peirce as a panentheist. The latter task is made even more difficult--impossible, in my view--by Peirce's very explicit statements to the contrary in several early drafts for "A Neglected Argument." CSP: … Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all three Universes of experience. I do *not *mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence is "immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them. (R 843:11[1]) CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be meant, the Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Infinite Benignity, a Being *not *"immanent in" the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception … (R 843:18&20[1-2]) CSP: But I had better add that I do *not *mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. (R 843:25[4]) In all three cases, the emphasis on "not" is in the original manuscript. 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 10:55 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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* > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
