Gary R., List:

As I seem to recall you suggesting previously, our disagreement about
whether God is transcendent or immanent (or both) might be more
terminological than conceptual.

Again, Peirce's entry for "immanent" in *The Century Dictionary* states,
"The doctrine of an immanent deity does not imply that the world, or the
soul of the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God." Hence,
when he explicitly denies on several occasions that God is "immanent in
Nature" or "immanent in the Universes," he presumably has *this *sense in
mind. However, since he also explicitly and repeatedly maintains that God's
creation of the world is *ongoing*, my guess is that he would have no issue
with describing God as "permanently pervading and sustaining the universe,"
which is today's dictionary definition of "immanent." I even acknowledged a
few weeks ago that theists *affirm *this as following from God's
transcendence and omnipresence.

To my knowledge (so far), Peirce's only use of "transcends" when referring
to God is in a manuscript passage that I quoted yesterday--"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" (R 288:91[178], 1905). As
I said then, I take this to mean that *Ens necessarium* is not situated
*within* any of the three universes, nor even the three of them taken
together. Instead, God's mode of being is utterly unique, which it would
have to be if God is indeed the One "root of all being" (CP 1.487, c.
1896), "the Principle of all Phenomena" and "the author and creator of all
that could ever be observed of Ideas, Occurrences, or *Logoi*" (R
339:[295r], 1908).

Finally, here is what Peirce had to say about prayer, which strikes me as
fully consistent with Mary Oliver's lovely poem.

CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray; and this fact
constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact there is found to
be not only *soulagement* [relief] in prayer, but great spiritual good and
moral strength. I do not see why prayer may not be efficacious, or if not
the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which the prayer is nothing more
than the expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to
God, which is nothing more than precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the
name of God; so that, in that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name
of the Lord. (CP 6.516, c. 1906)


Prayer using words *expresses* "the soul's consciousness of its relation to
God," which we perhaps *experience *most vividly in silence. In fact, right
before this quotation, Peirce says that "it is absolutely impossible
*really* to think of God without awe mingled with love" (CP 6.515). Notice
also that he calls this state of mind "precisely the pragmatistic meaning
of the name of God," so anyone who claims that propositions about God--or
even personal encounters with God--are "outside pragmatism" is clearly
mistaken.

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 8:14 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.

Reply via email to