Gary R, List I’ll only make this one post - since I’m not going to get into a religious discussion. ButI think that your outline of a panentheism is closer to that outlined by Peirce’s semiosis - than Jon’s classical theism.
That is - I reject ,as do you, the notion of a discrete separate external Dynamic Object - external to the universe. That is semiosically- illogical, since the DO only becomes a DO within a semiosic interaction. Second - I reject the interpretation of ’the whole universe is a sign’ to mean that whole universe is merely the mediate term, the representamen.Again, semiotically, that’sillogical. The triad is irreducible and a reprsentamen does not ‘exist’ or function on its own. Peirce was very explicit about this. Third -hhmm..Could your notion of Jesus be the Immediate Object? That’s all I’ll say - my only point was that I consider that JAS’s outline of this religious framework is NOT similar to that of Peirce. Edwina > On Oct 1, 2024, at 8:12 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > I think that there is a different, indeed a panentheistic interpretation of > this passage which Jon recently commented on. > CSP: Pragmaticism consists in recognizing all concepts as anthropomorphic; > and the more causal a concept is the more anthropomorphic must the > pragmaticist apprehend it. As his common sense prevents him from identifying > himself with his body, so he will not think of God as immanent in the > universe, though he must think that God's fulfillment of His Being in some > vague sense required the Creation. [. . .] (Bold and Italic/Bold emphasis > added by GR). > JAS: This seems to be a shorter and less detailed draft of what I quoted > previously--affirming the anthropomorphism of all concepts, rejecting the > immanence of God, and describing scientific inquiry as worship, even for > professing unbelievers. [Emphasis added by GR]. > I do not interpret the passage quoted from Jon's longer quotation as a > rejection of the immanence of God. As I see it, while, yes, a person doesn't > identify himself with his body, yet the body truly exists, and is real, and > not only for that person. No one denies that he has a body; further, the > holistic notion of a bodymind was rather highly developed in the 20th century > to represent the profound interpenetration of the two in a normal human > being. Similarly, the body of God can -- at least in the panentheism which > I've been outlining -- be seen as the Body of Christ, perhaps that very > spiritual body which Christians in taking communion. I am not suggesting that > this is Peirce's view, but I think an argument can be made for it which, > further developed, might be appealing beyond Christianity. > Jon wrote: "T]he entire universe as one immense sign still requires an > overall dynamical object that is external to it, independent of it, and > unaffected by it." > I agree with the first part of this statement, but I disagree with the second > part of it while acknowledging that it may in fact be Peirce's position. > > However, before arguing further, I will note that with which I do agree in > Jon's explication of Peirce's cosmology. Firstly, there seems little doubt > that in Peirce's semeiotic cosmology that the universe can indeed be > considered "one vast sign" engaged in an ongoing process of semiosis, that > is, interpretation and meaning making, and all that we call 'evolutional'. > Further, I agree that everything in the universe -- including matter (its > subatomic underpinnings is a separate issue as I see it), ideas, and > relations -- everything that can develop or evolve participates in the > triadic relationship between the sign, its object, and its tinterpretant. > > However, in considering whether the dynamic Object of the universe is outside > the continuity of the semiosis of our evolving cosmos, I interpret the > implications of Peirce's synechism in a way different from Jon's. > > My metaphysical/semiotic perspective suggests that God, if considered the > ultimate dynamic Object of the universe, cannot be entirely separate from it, > rather can be seen to be both the Creator and the immanent principle (Christ, > from a Cosmic Christian perspective), God guiding the evolutionary > development of the cosmos through the second and third Persons of the > Trinity. This principle (along with much of Peirce's semeiotic) is the basis > for my panentheistic view (although, as I previously suggested, a designation > other than 'Christic' will need to found or created to allow for other, > including possible future viewpoints (hopefully including scientific ones > with their own developing metaphysical symbol systems). I have mentioned > before that I too look for a rapprochement of science and religion as, of > course, did others, including Peirce, Dewey, Teilhard de Chardin, Whitehead, > etc. > > So, as I see it, and from a standpoint which clearly diverges from Peirce's > and Jon's, God is not a distant, fixed, changeless Object outside the > semiotic 'system', but an active participant in the process of semiosis > involved in the unfolding of the universe as the ultimate Interpretant and > source of purpose, meaning, and teleology. Who other than the Tripartite God > could be fully revealed in that ideal Final Interpretant? How could He who is > Ens Necessarium not be involved in that Revelation? (From my panentheistic > standpoint my guess is that something like the entire Trinity will be > revealed, while its mathematical and logical expression will require the > three Peircean categories along the way. But that's just a guess.) > > In conclusion, my conception of God, while informed by semeiotic, is clearly > not fully in agreement with Peirce's religious metaphysics. For panentheistic > Christianity as I conceive of it, God both transcends. the universe but is > simultaneously present within His Creation through the Mystical Body of > Christ in communion with the Father through the Holy Spirit (how this might > be translated into universal religious and/or scientific terminology, I at > present have no idea -- although certain Tibetan tantras and a few other > ancient sources offer a hint). > > Such a view, I believe, reflects a kind of pantheistic objective realism in > which all of Reality itself has a purposeful and meaningful structure > involving a kind of divine act of interpretation in the sense that God is > simultaneously the origin of the sign process, the ground of being (Ens > Necessarium), and who with the Son and the Spirit sustain and evolve the > universe, ultimately giving final coherence to the Cosmos as a meaningful > totality (towards the Ultimate Interpretant). > > I hope it goes without saying that I am a theist of a peculiar stripe, > namely, a panentheist with a trichotomic mindset. I would of course be > especially eager to discuss these ideas with any List members interested in > pursuing this view of the possibility of a scientific religion having its > point of departure in panentheism. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 2:58 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List: >> >> Just for the record, here are some additional remarks about God in R 288. >> >> CSP: Could I be assured that other men candidly and deliberately doubt any >> proposition which I had regarded as indubitable, that fact would inevitably >> cause me to doubt it too. I ought not, however, lightly to admit that they >> do so doubt a proposition which the most thorough criticism has left quite >> indubitable by myself; for there are other states of mind that can easily be >> mistaken for doubt. Good examples are not easily found, since the Critical >> Common Sensist in truth doubts more than most men, including critics. The >> belief in God will illustrate what is meant. It is very commonly rejected >> because the disbelievers do not consider the proposition in its vague >> irresistible sense, but find objections to too precided senses. Many do >> believe but reject the word in favor of the Unknowable, or something of the >> sort. Some have been persuaded they ought not to believe, yet do believe, >> some [illegible] consciously, others unconsciously. About all the >> theologians and the old Scotch philosophers with them committed the same >> mistake of too much preciding the original beliefs. (R 288:40-41[79-80[) >> >> CSP: Questioner D. But am I to be told that I mean nothing by God but the >> creator? >> Pragmaticist. No, I do not say that. The concept of God,--if concept be the >> word,--is necessarily vague in the extreme. Unless, like some pragmatists, >> we are to satisfy ourselves with a finite God, as I emphatically cannot, or >> with some other low and unworthy conception, we cannot avoid contradictions. >> I do not see that we can mean anything by the being of God, but a being that >> is indefinite. But in those respects in which a concept is vague and >> therefore liable to be self-contradictory, it plainly cannot be >> pragmaticistic meaning, and therefore should not be considered as >> intellectual. Possibly it would do to say that it is a rational emotion; but >> it really seems to belong to no recognized type of representation. (R >> 288:79-80[157&159]) >> >> In both these passages, Peirce again emphasizes the vagueness of the concept >> of God. In the first one, he calls it "irresistible" and suggests that >> people who claim to disbelieve in God are really just objecting to precise >> definitions. In the second one, he denies that God is finite, as he does in >> several other texts. >> >> CSP: Pragmaticism consists in recognizing all concepts as anthropomorphic; >> and the more causal a concept is the more anthropomorphic must the >> pragmaticist apprehend it. As his common sense prevents him from identifying >> himself with his body, so he will not think of God as immanent in the >> universe, though he must think that God's fulfillment of His Being in some >> vague sense required the Creation. The pursuit of pure heuretic science >> seems to him the highest mode of worship, and fully as much so in a Häckel, >> a Leidy, or a Laplace as in a Kelvin or an Asa Gray or a Benjamin Peirce, >> consciousness being no more than the skin of the mind. (R 288:82[161]) >> >> This seems to be a shorter and less detailed draft of what I quoted >> previously--affirming the anthropomorphism of all concepts, rejecting the >> immanence of God, and describing scientific inquiry as worship, even for >> professing unbelievers. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 5:07 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> List: >>> >>> An aspect of Peirce's writings that presents both challenges and >>> opportunities for scholars of his thought is the fact that so many of his >>> texts remain unpublished. Yesterday, I came across a passage in one such >>> manuscript that is highly relevant to our recent discussions about how God >>> as Ens necessarium fulfills the logical requirement for a rational >>> explanation of the co-realty of the three universes. It is in one of the >>> drafts for his series of articles on pragmaticism in The Monist. >>> >>> CSP: Unless we were to think reason in general futile, which neither you >>> reader nor I can, we have the problem before us to explain the sum total of >>> the real, however vaguely. To explain anything is to show it to be a >>> necessary consequence. To say that the total real is a consequence of utter >>> nothing without substance or appearance is absurd. The only alternative is >>> to suppose a necessary something whose mode of being transcends reality. >>> This is vague enough. 'Necessary being' is the equivalent of 'something,' >>> since nothing is self-contradictory and impossible. But a necessary being >>> adequate to account for the sum total of reality, however inscrutable, is >>> not in all respects entirely vague. >>> The exact logician with his bare mathematical apparatus finds it impossible >>> to give any thoroughgoing formal analysis of thought without regarding it >>> as the product of a thinking activity; and he thus sees more clearly than >>> another man, perhaps, the ineluctability of the conception of creative >>> thought. An immanent God will not answer the purpose, although it would >>> seem that creation must in some vague sense be needed for the fulfillment >>> of His being. But our idea of Him and of the mode of His being must remain >>> vague in the extreme (though not utterly so); and as vague, >>> self-contradictory. But pragmaticism is inseparable from the doctrine that >>> all human thought and meaning must carry the anthropomorphic stamp, >>> disguise it as you will. In proportion as an object is more >>> incomprehensible we are compelled more markedly to resort to human ideals, >>> social activities and passional elements to make anything out of it. If I >>> allowed myself to continue, I fear I should stump myself upon a theological >>> argument, while my only purpose is to show that pragmaticism is favorable >>> to religion. >>> I will conclude, then, with the opinion that for the pragmaticistic >>> logician, nature (including the [illegible] works of men) is the symbol of >>> God to Humanity, and pure heuretic science makes it the prayer book of an >>> elevating worship. (R 288:91-92[178-181], 1905) >>> >>> This confirms what I have been suggesting for years--Peirce's statement in >>> CP 6.490 (1908) that "the three universes must actually be absolutely >>> necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" is part of a reductio ad >>> absurdum. As he states plainly here, any claim that three-category reality >>> somehow came into being on its own, as "a necessary consequence ... of >>> utter nothing ... is absurd" because "nothing is self-contradictory and >>> impossible." Of course, that this was his position should have been >>> indisputable already from what he wrote seven years earlier--"Now the >>> question arises, what necessarily resulted from that [initial] state of >>> things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless >>> nothing in particular necessarily resulted. ... I say that nothing >>> necessarily resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom" (CP 6.218-219, >>> 1898). >>> >>> Moreover, Peirce again explicitly rejects "an immanent God," but this time >>> he also explicitly affirms that "a necessary something ... transcends >>> reality," with the caveat that "creation must in some vague sense be needed >>> for the fulfillment of His being." As he says elsewhere, "I think we must >>> regard Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God" (CP 6.506, c. >>> 1906). Nevertheless, he uses the word "vaguely" or "vague" six different >>> times in this passage, consistent with his statements elsewhere that "'God' >>> is a vernacular word and, like all such words, but more than almost any, is >>> vague" (CP 6.494, c. 1906); and that "we must not predicate any Attribute >>> of God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively, since God, though in a >>> sense essentially intelligible, is nevertheless essentially >>> incomprehensible" (SWS:283, 1909). >>> >>> Finally, Peirce makes it clear that he is not interested in offering "a >>> theological argument," wishing only "to show that pragmaticism is favorable >>> to religion" because it must "resort to human ideals, social activities and >>> passional elements to make anything out of" God as an incomprehensible >>> object. He concludes by reiterating that the entire universe is one immense >>> sign, "the symbol of God to Humanity," and that engaging in "pure heuretic >>> science" is a form of worship. After all, "if contemplation and study of >>> the physico-psychical universe can imbue a man with principles of conduct >>> analogous to the influence of a great man's works or conversation, then >>> that analogue of a mind--for it is impossible to say that any human >>> attribute is literally applicable--is what he [the pragmaticist] means by >>> 'God'" (CP 6.502, c. 1906). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while >> to repair / update all the links! >> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> 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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
