Jon, List, There's one point in our recent exchange which I think might need some clarification. You wrote:
JAS: 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). The actual quotation is: On the other hand, the perfect sign 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. In addition, the perfect sign never ceases to undergo changes of the kind we rather drolly call spontaneous, that is, they happen sua sponte but not by its will. They are phenomena of growth. Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs. God is not mentioned in the original quotation although, of course, you have been arguing that God *is* the Od of the universe. Are you saying that the universe considered as one vast sign is a "perfect sign"? Does Peirce explicitly say this anywhere? Also, is the vast sign that is the universe then a quasi-mind? If so, how does that quasi-mind connect to the Mind of God as Peirce conceives of it in your understanding? The passage quoted above brought to mind another which might put some light on the above quotation. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or entelechy, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so identical,—in such identity as a sign may have,—with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be *that Universe in its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being*. The "Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign (EP2:304, emphasis added). Here the "perfect sign" is in identity "with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it." Further, the phrase, "that Universe in its *aspect* as a sign" is intriguing. What other 'aspects' might the universe have? Especially if it is viewed as one vast sign? Best, Gary R On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 6:10 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
