Jon, List, [Note and correction to my last post: In a quick search I have not been able to find that passage I quoted on the "immanence" of God (I don't recall exactly how I originally came upon it).
But a question did come to my mind for Jon regarding this passage. CSP: For those metaphysical questions that have such interest, the question of a future life and especially that of One Incomprehensible but Personal God, not immanent in but creating the universe, I, for one, heartily admit that a Humanism, that does not pretend to be a science but only an instinct, like a bird's power of flight, but purified by meditation, is the most precious contribution that has been made to philosophy for ages. Peirce: CP 5.496 Jon, how can God be seen to be both "Personal" and "not immanent." That seems contradictory to me. GR On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 4:02 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, Jon, List, > > ET: ". . . my only point was that I consider that JAS’s outline of this > religious framework is NOT similar to that of Peirce." > > I actually think that Jon is fairly on target regarding Peirce's own > *religious* views which, I would suggest, can be seen at certain places > to conflict with some other of his metaphysical statements. So I also tend > to agree with you that there is in Peirce's semeiotic and metaphysical > writings material that suggests other cosmological views including that God > can be equated with a universal Mind directing the evolution of the cosmos. > > For example, while I would agree with Jon that Peirce did not explicitly > equate God with Mind, some passages suggest that God can be understood as a > form of universal/cosmic Mind. With the following snippets (some of which I > believe are quite familiar to many Peirceans) I hope to begin to show this. > I'll start with the* most unlikely* connection of God to universal Mind > and conclude with perhaps the *most likely* one. > > While this may be stretching it a bit, even in Peirce's describing God as *Ens > necessarium*, a rational order or Mind guiding the cosmos might be seen > to apply. > > "God is a being of incomprehensible power and knowledge, and, what is more > to the purpose, he is the living, self-conscious Necessary Being, whose > essence lies in a triune nature" (CP 6.490). > > > God is described as "self-conscious," which *might* be seen > as associating God with Mind in the sense of an omniscient rational Being. > In addition, note that "his essence lies in a *triune nature*." I think > that perhaps that's the stronger suggestion here for it associates God's > essence with the two other Persons of the Trinity, the first Person being > wholly 'Three Persons is One'. This trichotomic point, and its connection > to God's cosmological action within our universe would require at least an > essay of its own. In any event, other brief quotes may together make a > stronger case. > > Here Peirce equates the divine with the rational principle of 3ns that > governs the universe: > > "The third mode of consciousness is Thought, or Mediation, which is > characteristic of the Divine Spirit" (CP 6.452). > > > This implies that the divine -- as Holy Spirit -- is essentially a form of > cosmic thought or mediation, which could be interpreted as aligning God > with universal Mind, with rationality itself through, perhaps, the third > Person of the Trinity. > > But perhaps one gets closer to God as Mind in Peirce's discussion of > *evolutionary > love* (*Agape*). He describes the universe as directed by a rational, > loving purpose, which he identifies with God. > > "The universe is an argument, to the effect that there is a God, and that *the > universe is ruled by a conscious purpose, a mind*, and not by chance" (CP > 6.490, emphasis added). > > > This suggests to me that God *is *that guiding, purposeful Mind, that the > universe is not some chance, mind-less mechanism, but is rather > purposefully directed towards growth, evolution, and evolutionary love (I > hope some other planet in the cosmos is doing a better job of the last > mentioned than we are). > > > "The law of mind is that ideas tend to spread continuously and to affect > certain others which stand to them in a peculiar relation of affecting and > being affected by them" (CP 1.615). > > > Here, Peirce’s "law of mind" seems to be a metaphor for the rational order > of the universe, implying that God operates *as the Mind behind these > laws*, sustaining and guiding the cosmos. > > And here he identifies God directly with thought and reason. > > "The conception of God is that of a Being of whom all that happens is but > the development of an idea in His mind" (CP 6.102). > > > That "single idea" I take to be this universe seen as a vast Sign. In this > passage, Peirce suggests that the entire unfolding of the universe is > essentially an expression of divine thought. One might ask a theist: What > serves to realize that unfolding but the Power of God through the Trinity? > > Finally, in this snippet Peirce describes God as the living principle > (Mind) that evolves through the universe. > > "The universe . . . is not a mere mechanism, but is, so to speak, a > living process, and is evolving toward an ultimate state of ideal > perfection. *The divine mind is immanent in the universe*, guiding it > toward that end" (CP 6.490, emphasis added). > > > This passage states that God's *a universal Mind that is immanent within > the cosmos*, actively guiding its evolution. > > In at least some of these snippets one can see what I might call Peirce's > more *nuanced* view of God as a form of cosmic Mind, that living rationali > ty which permeates, sustains, and directs the universe, and aligning with > his broader metaphysical and semiotic framework. > > Peirce thought that the proof of God's Reality would be a great boon to > mankind (I agree), and while, as Jon correctly noted, the panentheistic > idea had been introduced long before he was working, yet is quite likely > that the majority of people he came in contact with, say in the churches he > attended, knew nothing of it (even today few do). So he took what might be > seen as the reasonable path then and argued from a more traditional > theistic position as likely to carry more weight in his milieu towards the > goal of proving the Truth of Religion. In saying that I am not suggesting > that he necessarily would have come to embrace panentheism, but it is a > possibility since, as some have seen suggestions of that viewpoint in his > religious metaphysics. > > Be that as it may, even should humanity survive climate disaster, wars, > and global epidemics, it will take a v*ery long time *to arrive at a > scientific religion (all the attempts that I mentioned in my earlier post > which took a stab at it failed). > > Meanwhile, panentheism seems to me to be an excellent candidate 'on the > way' to that desideratum, but *only* if one can equate God with universal > Mind. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:41 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 t >> *interpretant*. >> >> 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]> 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]> 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 >>>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> 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. >> >> >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
