Jon, List, It does appear that we are getting closer in what has been "our disagreement about whether God is transcendent or immanent (or both)," and that it "might be more terminological than conceptual." And further, that Peirce ' "would have no issue with describing God as "permanently pervading and sustaining the universe".'
You also remarked that you acknowledged a few weeks ago that theists *affirm *this as following from God's transcendence and omnipresence." Well, yes, certainly from God's omnipresence. But how from God's transcendence? If God is as well 'omnipresent', then how does this radically differ from panentheism (as I've presented it), since God's *presence* is precisely -- and *especially from the standpoint of synechism* -- the reason that we* are able* to have a personal relationship with God? Panentheism, in the sense that I have been outlining it, involves (among many ideas) the idea that whatever aspect of God* is* transcendent that there are aspects that are not, that are immediately present to us. In a word, how can God be both wholly 'transcendent' and wholly 'present' to us? In other words, doesn't transcendence contract immanence if there is not something like a division of divine tasks, so to speak? I had earlier thought that the doctrine of the Christian Trinity might be helpful in resolving that contradiction (or, perhaps better, bridging that conceptual gap), one which we've entertained may be more linguistic than anything else. But at the moment I don't see it is merely or even principally linguistic, rather that the transcendent aspect of God (the Father) relates especially to the two other persons of the Trinity, that the Father is wholly transcendent in relation to us, but not to them. That, for example (and as suggested by religious language, here used only as a kind of shortcut), some would say that we pray to the Father through the Son and to the Son via the Holy Spirit (it's difficult fro me to discuss this metaphysically without throwing in some theology by way of example). The important point is that in our discussion of "whether God is transcendent or immanent (or both)" that, I would opt for 'both', but distinguishing between the 'roles' of the persons of the creation and in relation to the cosmos generally, but especially in relation to human creation and its spiritual experience; and continuing the Christian analogy, acknowledging that the three Persons are One God. [However, in an off List note to you, Jon, a few months ago I alluded to the trinities of several other religions so, again, I am using the Christian Trinity principally by way of example and the form of trinity which I know best.] Turning now to prayer, you quoted Peirce: 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) This is most interesting as I have throughout my life found the notion of prayer being 'efficacious' in the sense of being "successful in producing a desired or intended result" to be at best naive, that is, imagining that God is hearing and acting upon every person's entreaty seems, well, factually disproved (for example, considering that both Union and Confederate soldiers called on God for success in their battles together). Peirce addas an interesting alternative to the usual notion of prayer as efficacious (in the dictionary sense): ". . . or if not the prayer exactly [that is efficacious], *the **state of mind* of which the prayer is nothing more than the expression, namely the soul's consciousness of its relation to God" (emphasis added).This is most certainly how I've come to pray and to think of prayer as efficacious. But I think it is -- or can be -- more than just the state of mind of an individual. Peirce describes a very large gathering of young Christians in New York City which he observed one year, and remarks that there was a palpable sense of a lightening and brightening -- a kind of spiritual uplift -- of the spirit in a general sense. Well, this* might* just represent the kind of uplift that an audience, seemingly as one, feels and palpably expresses at,say, a particularly beautifully performed passage in a profound piece of music. And as Peirce writes elsewhere, he viewed religion as poetry completed (or something like that -- I'm sure you recall the passage). So, to my way of thinking, just as "the reasonable in itself" can be seen as the summum bonum of scientific thought, "the expression of authentically deep spiritual emotion" might be seen as the summum bonum of religion (vide, some of the cantatas of Bach; also, Suzanne Langer's* Feeling and Form* hints at this in places in reference to art). JAS: Peirce says that "it is absolutely impossible *really* to think of God without awe mingled with love" [. . .] 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. I couldn't agree more! Cheers, Gary R On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 10:37 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
