Gary R., List: GR: I do not interpret the passage quoted from Jon's longer quotation as a rejection of the immanence of God.
In that quoted passage, Peirce plainly states that "the pragmaticist ... *will not* think of God as immanent in the universe" (emphasis mine). You have previously *recognized *his rejection of God's immanence, not only here but in several other texts that I have quoted, so my understanding is that you simply *disagree *with him about this. Is that right? GR: My metaphysical/semiotic perspective suggests that *God*, if considered the ultimate dynamic Object of the universe, *cannot* be entirely separate from it ... As I have said before, no one is claiming that God is "entirely separate from" the universe. Instead, theism maintains that God *transcends* the universe, such that God does not in any way *depend on* the universe; and Peirce's speculative grammar stipulates that *every *dynamical object is external to *any *sign that it determines, independent of *that *sign, and unaffected by *that *sign. This is why panentheism is *not *properly characterized as a variety of theism--it involves an *utterly different *conception of God's nature and relationship to the universe--and also why panentheism is *incompatible *with God being the dynamical object of the universe as one immense sign. GR: 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. Again, theism does not conceive of God as "distant." On the contrary, God is *omnipresent *and therefore *immediately *present, "nearer" to each of us than anything *within *the created universe itself. Moreover, God is constantly *determining *the universe as one immense sign at every moment, such that it "is perpetually being acted upon by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant" (EP 2:545n25, 1906). Accordingly, God cannot be its "*ultimate *interpretant," especially since that ideal outcome will never *actually *be achieved. Instead, I understand the *final* interpretant of the universe as one immense sign to be God *completely revealed* as an unattainable limit in the infinite future. In other words, creation *is *revelation, God's ongoing and never-ending self-disclosure. I suggest that this is the "vague sense" in which "God's fulfillment of His Being ... required the Creation," i.e., God's *purpose *in creating and sustaining the universe is making Himself more and more definitely *known*. GR: How could He who *is* *Ens Necessarium* *not* be involved in *that* Revelation? ... God is simultaneously the origin of the sign process, the ground of being (*Ens Necessarium) ...* If panentheism is true, such that God is *affected by* the universe in some way instead of being immutable as theism maintains, then God cannot coherently be described as a thoroughly *necessary *being since those changing aspects of God would instead be *contingent*. That being the case, it seems to me that Peirce's ethics of terminology should preclude using the well-established metaphysical term "*Ens necessarium*" when referring to God as conceived in accordance with panentheism. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:12 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 > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
