Jeff, List, I'm sorry that it's taken a little while to get back to you, Jeff, but it's been a busy, weird time on the list since some here would seem to have forgotten that for Peirce logic as semeiotic is the third of the normative sciences which takes some of its most fundamental principles from the other two normative sciences, especially ethics.
nd | A Suggested Classification of the Sciences | MS [R] 1339:12 Reasoning is self-controlled thought; and thus Logic is directly dependent upon Ethics, or the science of self-control, in general. The first normative science is, of course, pure Esthetics (which has little in common with aesthetics as that term is employed in, for example, the fine arts). In Peirce's tentative and self-admittedly incomplete (really, hardly begun) inquiry into a scientific esthetics, he arrives at the *summum bonum* for science as "the reasonable in itself." The second normative science is *pure Ethics* which Peirce much less tentatively suggests is for science--and so, for scientists--pursuing a course of self-controlled conduct in keeping with the *summum bunum* just mentioned. 1904 | A Brief Intellectual Autobiography by Charles Sanders Peirce | Peirce, 1983, p. 71; MS [R] L107:20 Ethics studies in the controllable phenomenon the act and process of controlling it. This study is the very heart of normative science, and emphasizes more strongly than the others that dichotomy which is the constitutive characteristic of normative science. For it is the study of the controlled and the uncontrolled as they appear in effort and resistance. …conduct. . . action so far as it seeks one ultimate result as desirable and shun[s] another [as] undesirable. nd | Fragments [R] | MS [R] 839 I think to be a good logician in Peirce's sense is to be grounded in sound esthetics and ethics such that eventually the lack of an estheticak and ethical grounding will reveal itself. 1. In any event, getting to that wonderful passage from Emerson's "The Poet" you provided, since all the triads he offered "stand respectively for the love of truth, for the love of good, and for the love of beauty," I thought I'd start with a categorial trikon of these three as perhaps most closely aligned with Peirce's categories. While you suggested, I think, that the order Emerson gave them appear to be "first, second and third in a number of different cultural traditions," as I see it at the moment these three appear to be Peirce's 3ns, 2ns, and 1ns in *that* order. So: truth, good, beauty: 1ns beauty |> 3ns truth 2ns goodness That seems roughly right for the practical sciences we might build on Peirce's triad of the theoretical normative sciences. 1ns pure Esthetics |> 3ns Logic as Semeiotic 2ns pur Ethics In any case, starting with Emerson's truth, goodness, beauty, mutatis mutandis, we get: 1ns sayer (in Emerson's sense) |> 3ns knower 2ns doer This too seems reasonably aligned with Peirce's three types of men, as I recall. For Peirce: 1ns the artist (also, recall Peirce's comment to the effect that religion is poesis completed) |> 3ns the scientist 2ns the practical (e.g. business) man Emerson's cause, operation, and effect doesn't seem to conform to Peirce's categories: 1ns effect |> 3ns cause 2ns operation "Effect" categorially for Peirce would more likely be an example of 2ns, and 'cause' 1ns (as in his ordering of biological evolution following the vector (order or path) of process from 1ns through 3ns to 1ns. So for Peirce 1st: 1ns cause (chance sporting leading to. . .) |> 2nd: 3ns operation (new patterns of habit-formation resulting in. . .) 3rd: 2ns effect (say, some structural change in an organism) But perhaps Emerson's order more closely represents his "theological" triad: 1ns Spirit |> 3ns Father 2ns Son Well, for me it remains unclear which Person of the Holy Trinity to put where, so I'll leave it at that for now. I certainly can't make much of the next triad, probably because I have some, but not many associations for each of these Greek Gods. Perhaps a classicist could help here. 1ns Neptune |> 3ns Jove 2ns Pluto 2. But let's start over and give these triads the order you suggested. 1ns truth |> 3ns beauty 2ns goodness 1ns knower |> 3ns sayer (in Emerson's sense) 2ns doer 1ns cause |> 3ns effect 2ns operation 1ns Father |> 3ns Spirit 2ns Son 1ns Jove |> 3ns Neptune 2ns Pluto Well, I don't know what to make of that ordering, except it doesn't seem to be Peirce's in those triads I'm familiar with (while I haven a clued regarding Jove, Pluto, and Neptune :-) However, the following remarks by Emerson have, I think, some significant Peircean--and, perhaps, universal--resonance. Emerson: For the Universe has three children, born at one time, which reappear under different names in every system of thought. . . These three are equal. Each is that which he is, essentially, so that he cannot be surmounted or analyzed, and each of these three has the power of the others latent in him and his own, patent. And this comment regarding the 'sayer' standing at the center, because "Beauty is the creator of the universe. . . emperor in his own right" is intriguing while, for me, as distillation of almost pure Emerson. Finally, I'd like to add that I think the committee's decision deprived that Unitarian congregation of what was sure to have been a most intriguing sermon on Emerson's conceptions of truth, goodness, and beauty. But, hey, maybe that's what one ought expect when you try to introduce trinitarian ideas into a Unitarian body (just a little joke as I know Unitarian churches in NYC which welcome trinitarian thinking). Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:16 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard < jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote: > Gary R, List, > > > I recommend adding Emerson's essay "The Poet" to your list of resources on > trinitarianism. > > > On a personal note, I was once asked to give a few presentations to a > Unitarian Universalist congregation when they were without a pastor. I > offered to give one on a defense of trinitarianism based on Emerson's > remarks in "The Poet". One reason I wanted to give a presentation on that > topic is that Emerson, himself, was a Unitarian minister. He gave up that > ministry, in part, because of his attraction to certain patterns > concerning what appears to be first, second and third in a number of > different cultural traditions. As such, I thought it would be fun to > explore his ideas on the topic. > > > Here is one particularly interesting passage from "The Poet": > > > For the Universe has three children, born at one time, which reappear > under different names in every system of thought, whether they be called > cause, operation and effect; or, more poetically, Jove, Pluto, Neptune; or, > theologically, the Father, the Spirit and the Son; but which we will call > here the Knower, the Doer and the Sayer. These stand respectively for the > love of truth, for the love of good, and for the love of beauty. These > three are equal. Each is that which he is, essentially, so that he cannot > be surmounted or analyzed, and each of these three has the power of the > others latent in him and his own, patent. > > > The poet is the sayer, the namer, and represents beauty. He is a > sovereign, and stands on the centre. For the world is not painted or > adorned, but is from the beginning beautiful; and God has not made some > beautiful things, but Beauty is the creator of the universe. Therefore the > poet is not any permissive potentate, but is emperor in his own right. > > > For better or worse, my offer to give a presentation on that topic was > turned down by the committee. > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, May 18, 2019 9:45:11 PM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the > Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited > > Jon, Gary f, Jeff, John, Edwina, List, > > In this message I would once again like to suggest that the idea of > trinity 'properly understood'--by which I mean understood in a Peircean > semeiotic/metaphysical sense--has the potential to contribute to a shared > understanding which could facilitate that rapprochement of science and > religion which Peirce imagined was yet possible. However, it seems > important before attempting to go further with that challenging project > that some other not unrelated work on trinity be considered as background. > > I earlier mentioned Richard Rohr > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rohr > Richard Rohr <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rohr> > en.wikipedia.org > Richard Rohr (born 1943) is an American author, spiritual writer, and > Franciscan friar based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He was ordained to the > priesthood... > > as a contemporary of advocate of trinitarian thinking. Commenting on the > work of another trinitarian of some note, Rohr wrote: > > > *Raimundo (or Raimon) Panikkar **(1918–2010). born to a Spanish Roman > Catholic mother and an Indian Hindu father. . . ** saw Trinity not as a > uniquely Christian idea but as the very structure of reality. For him the > Trinity overcame the challenges of monism (undifferentiated oneness), > dualism (separation of sacred and profane), and pantheism (God and creation > are indistinguishable). Richard Rohr, Newletter Archive, > **https://cac.org/category/daily-meditations/ > <https://cac.org/category/daily-meditations/>* > Daily Meditations Archives — Center for Action and Contemplation > <https://cac.org/category/daily-meditations/> > cac.org > Over the course of the 2019 Daily Meditations, Richard Rohr mines the > depths of his Christian tradition through his Franciscan and contemplative > lens. Each week builds on previous topics, but you can join at any time! > Learn more about this year’s theme—Old and New: An Evolving Faith—watch a > short intro, and explore recent reflections. Scroll down to read the most > recent post. Sign up to receive Fr. Richard’s free messages in your > email Inbox every day or at the end of each week. Select the email > frequency that works best for you Please select... Daily Meditations Weekly > Meditation Summary Monthly Newsletter First Name Last Name Email Re-Enter > Email Phone Numbers only; no punctuation Country Please select... > Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla > Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria > Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin > Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana B > > > As I recently noted, Cynthia Bourgeault commenting on Ranikkar's idea of > Cosmotheandric, writes: > > *Cosmotheandric *is the term Panikkar invents to describe this dynamic > relational ground. The word itself is the fusion of *cosmos *(world), > *theos *(God), and *andros* (man) and suggests a continuous > intercirculation among these three distinct planes of existence in a single > motion of self-communicating love. > > For Panikkar, "the Trinity is pure relationality": > > CB: Panikkar is emphatic that “being is a verb, not a substance,” and the > Trinity is the indivisible expression of the mode of this [verbal] > beingness. All speculation on the “substance” of the individual divine > persons (as has dominated Western metaphysics for more than fifteen hundred > years) thus starts off on a fundamental misperception; for, as Panikkar > sees it, “the Trinity is pure relationality" (Cynthia Bourgeault, Raimon > Panikkar, *Christophany: The Fullness of Man *(Orbis Books: 2004), 116. > > I read Panikkar in my 30's when I was studying comparative religion and > inter-religion, and was participating in interfaith dialogue. While > Panikkar was not to my knowledge aware of Peirce's work, yet his writings > on trinity show some intriguing similarities to Peirce's when one considers > the cosmos (or, kosmos, as Panikkar would have it to include not only the > scientists' cosmos, but the kosmos write large, that is, metaphysically), > while even differences in their approach may prove to be valuable in the > present discussion. However they might differ in their approaches--and in > some ways the difference is considerable--I think that both Peirce and > Panikkar can contribute to our understanding of a trinitarian kosmos. > > I should add that I tend to agree with Jon Alan Schmidt's "Semeiotic > Argumention" even as he and I seem not to agree on a panethentistic view in > consideration of the notion of the 'Cosmic Christ' (the second person of > the Trinity theologically speaking 'writ large', in my opinion). > > One of Panikkar's last books was his reworking of the Gifford Lectures > he'd written 20 years prior and which he then titled *The Dwelling of the > Divine in the Contemporary World* (1989). He apparently found that title > too "theological" and, as such, less relevant than his new "orientation" > for the "overall situation of the contemporary man in our world." His > revision of those lectures was retitled *The Rhythm of Being*. One can > find summaries of each of the lectures on this page: > > https://www.giffordlectures.org/news/books/rhythm-being > <https://www.giffordlectures.org/news/books/rhythm-being> > The Rhythm of Being - The Gifford Lectures > <https://www.giffordlectures.org/news/books/rhythm-being> > www.giffordlectures.org > Rewriting the lectures two decades after delivery allowed Raimon Panikkar > to “discern what is abiding” and to add material from two other intervening > books on Christology. > > In the last few years I've been reading as much as I can find on trinity > (and the Trinity), especially that which seems to me either not > incompatible with some of Peirce's trichotomic ideas (as applied to > semeiotic/metaphysics) and, even if differing from some of Peirce's > conceptions, of potential value in deepening our understanding of trinity. > For example, Stephen P Smith's, *Trinity: The Scientific Basis of > Vitalism and Transcendentalism* makes many references to Peirce's > writings on especially the categories and semeiotic. Here, find a brief > summary: > https://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Scientific-Basis-Vitalism-Transcendentalism/dp/0595420230 > While I'd eventually like to discuss some of the ideas set forth in > Smith's book, in this post I'll limit myself to summarizing two of > Panikkar's fundamental notions. > In Chapter 5, Panikkar introduces what he considers to be the universal > "triadic myth": > > > From the editorial gloss on Chapter 5: The Triadic Myth > > . . . Trinity is not a Christian monopoly, although the rationalism of > monotheistic monarchy has obscured this principle of relations in Christian > thought: “The Trinity is pure relationship.” [Panikkar] gives examples of > the triadic mythos: Chaldean oracles, Egyptian thought, the Vedic > tradition, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Parmenides, Valentinus, and Lao Tzu up > to modern thinkers such as Carl Jung and Buckminster Fuller. “The radical > Trinity I am advocating will not blur the distinction between Creator and > creature—to use these names—but would, as it were, extend the privilege of > the divine Trinity to the whole of reality.” > > I have myself also found "the triadic mythos" in Egyptian thought, the > Vedas and Upanishads, certain schools of Buddhism, Lao Tse, the I Ching, > Jung, and Buckminster Fuller. This idea of possibly extending the notion of > trinity "to the whole of reality" is precisely why I introduced the Subject > of this thread, for it seems to me key to achieving a rapprochement--or at > least an increased respect and understanding--between science and religion. > My sense is that Peirce's science is best suited to offering an approach to > such a reconciliation. > > The sixth of Panikkar's lectures introduces the "anthopocosmic invariant," > his understanding that "this triad belongs to our very nature," and that > it is fundamentally "relational." > > Chapter 6: The Theanthropocosmic Invariant > This lecture distinguishes between “invariant” needs of all humans > (birth, food, shelter, meaning) and cultural variance, which is a > fragmentation in different beliefs or professions. [Panikkar] argues that > one other invariant to human nature is the “the anthropocosmic”—an innate > sense of the relations of the divine, man, and the cosmos. He looks at > perceptions of these three realities. This sense is also a cultural > universal, since it appears in all cultures. “This awareness of this > triad belongs to our very nature, though the names and conceptions of the > three differ widely.” He shows how this “Triple Interindependence” appears > in Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu thought, and is relational rather than > monistic or dualistic. “This is the very Rhythm of Being” > > Best, > > Gary R > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 8:14 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Edwina, List: >> >> "God" and "nature" are *not *interchangeable in that passage ... >> >> CSP: Shall we not conclude then that the conduct of men is the sole >> purpose and sense of thinking, and that if it be asked *why *should the >> human stock be continued, the only answer is that that is among the >> inscrutable purposes of God or the virtual purposes of nature which for the >> present remain secrets to us? >> So it would seem. But this conclusion is too vastly far-reaching to be >> admitted without further examination. Man seems to himself to have some >> glimmer of co-understanding with God, or with Nature. The fact that he has >> been able in some degree to predict how Nature will act, to formulate >> general "laws" to which future events conform, seems to furnish inductive >> proof that man really penetrates in some measure the ideas that govern >> creation. Now man cannot believe that creation has not some ideal purpose. >> (CP 8.211-212; c. 1905) >> >> >> ... and they are certainly not interchangeable when it comes to immanence. >> >> 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 843:26) >> >> >> As previously discussed, based on Peirce's own definition of "immanent," >> this statement entails that Nature is neither *identical *to God nor a *part >> *of God. >> >> ET: I recall Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] >> and the description is most clearly an action of self-organization. >> >> >> No, it is not; and even if it were, Peirce later described that account >> as "faulty," as I discuss in my online paper >> <https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187>. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:22 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> JAS >>> >>> I keep referring to the notion of 'self-organization' - and my >>> understanding of God or Nature [and I note that Peirce uses the terms >>> interchangeably - see 8.210, 211] is that the Universe self-organizes these >>> necessary modal categories. >>> >>> God/Nature is not 'immanent' in or caused by any of the three categories >>> --[matter 2ns, Mind 3ns, Ideas 1ns] but is a principle of self-organization >>> within the Universe of semiosis that requires all three categories. >>> >>> That is, I see the semiosic function as self-organizing - I recall >>> Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] and the >>> description is most clearly an action of self-organization. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
