Jon, List, I was just completing the post I'd sent earlier today when I read yours. I will only note for now that I agree with you that what you just succinctly outlined are indeed Peirce's *metaphysical *views (as I earlier noted, I think think that there is perhaps a some overlap of his metaphysical and religious views, so maybe I should do some research into that notion). I have tended to agree with most of your work over the past many months -- even years -- on Peirce's metaphysical views here on Peirce-L and in your published papers. This is so in good part because I have seen you explicating Peirce's own views as expressed in his writings as opposed to expressing some idiosyncratic reading of them (which tendency is why I place the Tom Short of *Peirce's Theory of Signs* among the 'Thieves of Peirce')
But I disagree with one of your and Peirce's views in an important matter: I continue to be unable to see how one reconciles a 'transcendent' deity with one whom one can have "personal communication." For me, a truly synchestic view would have one in personal communication with *God in the world* (as I earlier argued, one involving the second person, Christ, and the third person, the Holy Spirit, essentially one with the first person, the Father). However, now I feel that using the language of Trinitarian Christianity is far from adequate for analyses seeking greater universality (although the 'trinitarian' -- small 't' - aspect remains central to my thinking involving, I might add, more than just the Three Universes, the three categories). Perhaps this poem by Mary Oliver begins to get close to the kind of communication with the Holy that I call prayer (and note: for the poet the natural world is deeply involved): Praying It doesn’t have to be the blue iris, it could be weeds in a vacant lot, or a few small stones; just pay attention, then patch a few words together and don’t try to make them elaborate, this isn’t a contest but the doorway into thanks, and a silence in which another voice may speak. ― Mary Oliver Nietzsche asked, "Whom should I thank?" Martin Buber needed no words in his response. Best, Gary R On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 7:20 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > Once again, I substantially agree with Gary's summary and explication of > Peirce's relevant views. I will just add that Peirce clearly conceives God > as *both *the transcendent creator of all three universes *and *their > unifying principle. > > It is in the context of discussing objective idealism and evolutionary > love that Peirce states, "the synechistic philosophy ... is forced to > accept the doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, it > cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct > perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him" > (CP 6.162, EP 1:332-333, 1892). It is in the context of discussing > pragmaticism that he refers to "One Incomprehensible but Personal God, not > immanent in but creating the universe" (CP 5.496, EP 2:421, 1907). In other > words, Peirce explicitly and repeatedly maintains that God is personal and > agential, not merely "an organizing principle"; and he considers this to be > a strictly philosophical, metaphysical, and cosmological doctrine, not a > religious belief. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 9:03 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary R, list >> >> My focus remains on the pragmaticist and objective idealism zone. I do >> consider that references to god are religious - and after all, religion >> does deal specifically with the metaphysical and cosmological - and I don’t >> want to go into a religious discussion since I consider its axioms are and >> must be, beliefs -- and outside of pragmaticism. >> >> Although - if we were to analyze god as ‘Mind’ - as Peirce suggests, >> then, I could see the value of such a discussion - because Mind does not >> have any agential attributes, as far as I understand, but is instead, an >> organizing principle made up of the three categories - which are firmly >> rooted in the objective world. >> >> Edwina. >> >> On Oct 25, 2024, at 11:05 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jon, Edwina, Helmut, List, >> >> Jon wrote: >> >> [W]hat Peirce associates directly with pragmatism is >> abduction/retroduction--*ampliative *reasoning, "the only logical >> operation which introduces any new idea" . . . According to him, the >> transcendent reality of God as *Ens necessarium* is a highly plausible >> metaphysical hypothesis (not a religious belief) to explain the co-reality >> of the three universes (and corresponding categories) that together >> encompass any and all observable phenomena. >> >> >> Allow me to amplify this a bit, Jon. I would suggest that Peirce sees God >> not as the creator of distinct elements in the cosmos, but as the unifying >> principle that is necessary for the three universes to come into being and, >> further, guaranteeing that the phenomena which follow from them are >> interrelated. This surely aligns with his synechism for it implies that >> reality is not a collection of isolated parts but, rather, an >> interconnected whole in space and time. >> >> And by offering God as a 'highly plausible hypothesis' he makes clear >> that, at least in his view (with which, of course, I agree), such a >> metaphysical question is indeed subject to inquiry just as other scientific >> hypotheses are (recalling that for Peirce metaphysics *is* a theoretical >> science). Positing God as *Ens necessarium* is a metaphysical context >> first concerned with forming a reasonable, plausible hypothesis which might >> explain aspects of the observable universe such as the role of the Three >> Universes (and, so, the three categories) in its structure and the extent >> to which signs appear to perfuse that structure. >> >> Of course, from the scientific standpoint, offering a plausible >> hypothesis is only the beginning of a complete scientific inquiry. There >> are then close observations to be made, deducing what follows from the >> hypothesis in relation to these observations for the express purpose of >> devising tests, and finally the metaphysical equivalent devising inductive >> experiments to see to which extent the hypothesis is confirmed (or not). >> Here too, as in semeiotics, it is my opinion that Peirce should be seen as >> a 'backswoodsman', as a pioneer, exploring a vast, unknown intellectual >> landscape. >> >> Peirce's closely associating abduction with pragmatism shows him >> committed to exploring metaphysical ideas with logical and scientific >> rigor, even inquiring into that which might be considered the ultimate >> metaphysical idea in one of the three branches he outlines in his >> 'Classification of the Sciences'. And his tentative conclusion there would >> seem to be that God, as* Ens necessarium*, is not a mere "abstract >> concept" but a necessary principle for explaining the reality of the >> universe, its semiotic nature, the roles and relations of the Three >> Universes, and the continuity of if it all, even in -- perhaps especially >> in -- its evolution. To the extent that Peirce's God is 'benevolent;, as he >> states be believes God to be at the head of the N.A., it also serves as the >> underlying principle of evolutionary love. >> >> 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.
