Dear Gary, Jerry and list
Gary, thank you so much for your words announcing my job at Peirce-l.
The Pluralist journal does not offer free access to its articles.
When I sent you the message, I wrote that access was free - probably
because the launch of the journal had just taken place.
I'm
x27;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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
wit
iticism members of this forum might offer.
>
> 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:
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NO
Mathematical
Philosophy (MCMP)
PS: SEPLO is not involved in the organisation of this event.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 subscr
Suteerth, List,
First, let me welcome you to the List. I hope you will find interlocutors
to engage with in this e-forum. I would suggest that you read through the
founder and first moderator of Peirce-L, Joseph Ransdell's comments on the
structure and expected democratic conduct in the
peirce.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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUB
But the first question (why he attempted to prove pragmatism to be true)
still eludes me...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 subsc
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
, 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message
more generally as "a disembodied spirit." I suspect that this is because he considered trinitarianism to be an example of making the conception of God more precise, and thus more controversial, instead of allowing it to remain vague.
My own "cosmic religious understanding" is irrele
ts on personal beliefs that appear to be direct
conflict with the theories they hold or are developing.
Hope that helps,
Jeff
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Date: Friday, October 4, 2024 at 3:25 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] God is an a
ception of God more precise, and thus more controversial, instead of
> allowing it to remain vague.
>
> My own "cosmic religious understanding" is irrelevant--as I keep saying,
> this is Peirce-L, not Schmidt-L. Nevertheless, it should be clear by now
> that I carefully
ot; is irrelevant--as I keep saying,
this is Peirce-L, not Schmidt-L. Nevertheless, it should be clear by now
that I carefully distinguish metaphysical hypotheses from religious
doctrines.
For me, religion is much more personal than cosmic--it is about how I (and
others) can be reconciled with God
ithin the three categories and semiosic triads.
>>
>> And see note 22 - vs ‘Concord transcendentalism’, or solely
>> transcendentalism.
>>
>> I note also, Brier’s comment that Peirce’s views are close to ‘quantum
>> field theory’ [ p 35]
>> And that Pe
Brier
> himself was still an active participant. In one of them, he admitted, "It
> is clear that the concept of god in panentheism is not a personal god" (
> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2016-10/msg00263.html). Since
> panentheism maintains that God is b
theory’ [ p 35]
>> And that Peirce believed in ‘creation ex nihilo [out of nothing] p 36.
>>
>> Edwina
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at
>> https://
EIRCE 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. PEIR
which
>> discusses the real nature of time, space, laws of nature, matter, etc. CP
>> 1.192
>>
>>
>> So, I am beginning to see that I follow Peirce in most everything except
>> his religious metaphysics. And further, I am beginning to see why you
>> canno
that the concept of god in panentheism is not a personal god"
> (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2016-10/msg00263.html). Since
> panentheism maintains that God is both impersonal and immanent, it is quite
> obvious from Peirce's own testimony that he was not a panent
rs in both CP (5.496)
and EP (2:421).
There were a few exchanges about this on the List back in 2016, when Brier
himself was still an active participant. In one of them, he admitted, "It
is clear that the concept of god in panentheism is not a personal god" (
https://list.iupui.edu/sym
am beginning to see why you
> cannot call me your Christian brother, for I do not hold to the doctrines,
> dogmas, creeds, etc. of "orthodox" Christianity, while I am coming to see
> -- through some recent concentrated research -- that Peirce does. Quite a
> revelation!
&g
.
Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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-
lready believe and one can
>> certainly find in Peirce's writings that which even strongly supports your
>> view. So I part company with you and Peirce on this topic. I most sincerely
>> hope that we will engage in the discussion of other topics on the List.
>>
>>
ct 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 a
ent *and therefore *immediately *present,
> "nearer" to each of us than anything *within *the created universe
> itself."
>
> "Omnipresent" so "immediately present" and "nearer to each of us than
> anything within the created universe itself." This, in
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).
ornia, USA
- Timothy O'Connor, Indiana University, USA
- Yujin Nagasawa, University of Birmingham, UK
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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-
nceive 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
fore he was working, yet is quite likely
>> that the majority of people he came in contact with, say in the churches he
>> attended, knew nothing of it (even today few do). So he took what might be
>> seen as the reasonable path then and argued from a more traditional
>> t
t;
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 R
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 pa
EIRCE 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 sho
ny claim that three-category
>>>> reality somehow came into being on its own, as "a necessary consequence ...
>>>> of utter nothing ... is absurd" because "nothing is self-contradictory and
>>>> impossible." Of course, that this was his position shoul
"I think we must
>>> regard Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God" (CP 6.506, c.
>>> 1906). Nevertheless, he uses the word "vaguely" or "vague" six different
>>> times in this passage, consistent with his statements elsewh
ibute
>>> of God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively, since God, though in a
>>> sense essentially intelligible, is nevertheless essentially
>>> incomprehensible" (SWS:283, 1909).
>>>
>>> Finally, Peirce makes it clear that he is not intereste
t;to show that pragmaticism is favorable
>> to religion" because it must "resort to human ideals, social activities and
>> passional elements to make anything out of" God as an incomprehensible
>> object. He concludes by reiterating that the entire universe is one immense
>> sign,
Thank you sir for the nice feedback. You have stated the points that I
wrote even more clearly and forcefully than I did.
On Tue, 1 Oct, 2024, 2:07 am Gary Richmond, wrote:
> Suteerth, List,
>
> Welcome to the Peirce-L forum. If you've read the notes by the founder and
> first
Suteerth, List,
Welcome to the Peirce-L forum. If you've read the notes by the founder and
first moderator of the forum, Joe Ransdell, then you know that this is a
very democratic place -- exactly an intellectual forum -- where both
seasoned scholars, philosophical novices, and student
move this enterprise forward.
>
> My Sunday musings, Mike
>
> --
> __
>
> Michael K. Bergman
> 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
> __
>
>
_ _ _ _ _
concepts of the reality of chance/freedom as well as
>> the developments of stable patterns - have also been scientifically
>> validated.
>>
>> Just another decade or two- would have shown, scientifically, the validity
>> of his theories.
>>
>> Edwina
>&
o laws, it must be that events
are not even now absolutely regulated by law. (CP 7.513-514, c. 1898)
I could provide additional quotations but hope that these will suffice.
There was even a whole thread on "Peirce and the Big Bang" several years
ago (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-
e.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 topeirc...@list.iupui.edu
validity of
his theories.
Edwina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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&qu
mplation and study of
> the physico-psychical universe can imbue a man with principles of conduct
> analogous to the influence of a great man's works or conversation, then
> that analogue of a mind--for it is impossible to say that *any *human
> attribute is *literally *applica
ults by observing reality.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 REPL
Respected members,
myself suteerth from India. I have just joined the Peirce-L-forum. My
interests are in any field related to information processing wherever it
may occur. I am primarily interested in how living cells process
information but also would love to hear from any of you regarding for
ynamic Object, producing
> information/data..which the Sign/Representamen processes and moves on as an
> Interpretant.
>
> I don’t think that there is much more to be said on this topic. It
> becomes, eventually, reduced to ’tenacious beliefs’ - and without any
> possibility of d
become a DO until it is ‘connected’ to that mediatory
>> Repesentamen/Sign. And that is why the Representamen/Sign is defined by
>> Peirce as the First correlate, because, in the semiosic act, that process
>> begins with the Representamen.
>>
>> “A Sign or Represen
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirc
n is defined by
>> Peirce as the First correlate, because, in the semiosic act, that process
>> begins with the Representamen.
>>
>> “A Sign or Representamen is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic
>> relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of
.274.
>
> And these terms of First, Second, and Third, are NOT references to the
> categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness [ as some on this list
> have previously asserted] but are ordinal terms, which refer to the order
> of the semiosic process.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _
re, that your claim is that Peirce means that ’the entire universe is
>> ONLY the first correlate/is filled with first correlates. And- as you’ve
>> told us before, that this means that God is the Dynamic Object. But apart
>> from my reading that there is no such thing as an is
eans that God is the Dynamic Object. But apart
> from my reading that there is no such thing as an isolate correlate in the
> triadic Sign of O-R-I - what your analysis sets up is that, since the FIRST
> semiosic action rests with the Representamen - then, this puts God as the
> SECOND ac
WAY 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 p
logue of a mind--for it is impossible to say that any human attribute is
> literally applicable--is what he [the pragmaticist] means by 'God'" (CP
> 6.502, c. 1906).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philo
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 rep
whatever there may be to which the definition is applicable;
> the other (which ordinarily has several clauses), that the definition is
> applicable to whatever there may be to which the definitum is applicable. *A
> definition does not assert that anything exists.* (EP 2:302, c. 1901)
&g
utually exclusive notions is truly a remarkable contribution to theological basics.
Cheers
Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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-
r / 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRC
which he considers my 'version' to be. I would hope that there
>> are some here who might be interested in further developing a 21st century
>> version of panentheism,
>>
>>
>> Although my interest in Uni…. has waned in recent decades, I find it
>> prob
ow 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
tions of “theism” and “panentheism” are mutually
> exclusive notions is truly a remarkable contribution to theological
> basics.
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll tak
IRCE 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
ich the definitum is applicable. *A
definition does not assert that anything exists.* (EP 2:302, c. 1901)
In his post launching the "Ens necessarium" thread (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-08/msg00019.html), Gary F.
mentioned that this "term in metaphysics and theol
tion of a Divine Mind that is infinite
>>>> and perfect? I suspect those who are attracted to some form of pantheism
>>>> or panentheism may think this is one consideration in favor of conceiving
>>>> of the Mind of God as being embodied the universe, which
w 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.
s body.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do theists who hold God is entirely separate from the evolving cosmos
>> hold that the Mind of God is embodied in something else, or do they think
>> such a perfect mind needs no embodiment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
Gary R., List:
I am not trying to persuade anyone to accept my personal religious beliefs.
I have simply presented some of them in response to what others have
said--most notably, your own long post on Sunday (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00080.html). In this
case, Helmut
f
>> the Mind of God as being embodied the universe, which is its body.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do theists who hold God is entirely separate from the evolving cosmos hold
>> that the Mind of God is embodied in something else, or do they think such a
>> perf
gt;
> Jeff
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
PEIRC
ven. That is not fair.
Best regards, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 "Rep
.
>
> That your philosophical work seems to me to be directed to always
> supporting your religious viewpoint appears more and more to me to be,
> frankly, unscientific -- and in the extreme. Peirce on several occasions
> asked that others try to *disprove* his theories. You seem to
ears more and more to me to be,
>> frankly, unscientific -- and in the extreme. Peirce on several occasions
>> asked that others try to *disprove* his theories. You seem to be
>> suggesting that researchers on Peirce-L should attempt to accept your
>> theories apropos of God and re
, which is its body.
Do theists who hold God is entirely separate from the evolving cosmos hold that
the Mind of God is embodied in something else, or do they think such a perfect
mind needs no embodiment?
Yours,
Jeff
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
ot use
> premisses, which we cannot prove, for refuting anything. Even if the big
> bang would be proved, there couldn´t be a proof, that it came out of
> nothing.
>
> Best regards, Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as wel
ected to always
supporting your religious viewpoint appears more and more to me to be,
frankly, unscientific -- and in the extreme. Peirce on several occasions
asked that others try to *disprove* his theories. You seem to be suggesting
that researchers on Peirce-L should attempt to accept your theo
ers of mine, you did for me." (Jesus), though this
>> is a quite hellish chapter, I don´t like due to this binary judgement with
>> only two options to go, heaven or hell. A person who is 49 % good and 51%
>> bad goes to hell, and a person who is not very different, just 51% goo
In fact, the first two paragraphs of my post below are copied almost word-for-word from one of my posts last week (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00057.html).
If the sign, object, and interpretant were not distinct correlates, then they could not be in a genuine triadic re
hing that I have not already acknowledged many
> times before. In fact, the first two paragraphs of my post below are copied
> almost word-for-word from one of my posts last week
> (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00057.html).
>
> If the sign, object, and inte
List:
I am not "now admitting" anything that I have not already acknowledged many
times before. In fact, the first two paragraphs of my post below are copied
almost word-for-word from one of my posts last week (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00057.html).
I
ry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
PEI
ial force of the functioning of the Universe as Mind - the force
>> within the universe developing habits of organization of discrete matter as
>> well as enabling chance deviations. This is my reading of Perice - and I’m
>> aware that others do not share this interpretation but ha
n. Panentheism thus requires either identifying
> *something
> else* as the dynamical object of the universe--and what could that
> possibly be?--or rejecting a semiosic ontology altogether.
> GR: So, I reject your interpretation of God as the dynamical object of the
> universe. Really
tter
> as well as enabling chance deviations. This is my reading of Perice - and
> I’m aware that others do not share this interpretation but have their own
> interpretations.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well
inity, the* ur-continuity* *of
>> all the categories as one* -- with the infinite potential that that
>> suggests) and immanent within the cosmos (as all *three created
>> categories* work together), thus fostering a worldview in which science
>> reveals the nature of
egories work together), thus fostering a
>> worldview in which science reveals the nature of God, and a panentheology
>> explores the meaning and purpose behind that revelation.
>>
>> In a word, a panentheistic vision, particularly with its emphasis on the
>> cosmos a
heistic vision, particularly with its emphasis on the
> cosmos as an *integral sign* (*uni*verse) which is in turn an *evolving
> complexus
> of signs*, offers an argument for both theists and atheists to find
> common ground. It allows for a view of reality that is suffused with
> meaning,
ipline "mathematical theology"? If not, I think, there should be!
Best regards, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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! ► PEI
, for God, this x can apply to more than one point on y in
>> His world, thus this function in the universe isn´t a function for Him. So
>> this function in the universe is not a part of God´s function.
>>
>> Besides not being a theologist, I neither am a mathematician, bu
09 PM wrote:
> Jon, Jeff, list,
>
> Peirce’s explains the difference between nominal and real definitions in
> *Baldwin’s
> Dictionary* under “Nominal
> <https://www.gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Nominal>.”
>
>
>
> Love, gary
>
> Coming from the ancestr
on, List,
>>>
>>> I was asking, how can God´s creation (I said property too) be called
>>> "non-immanent", if God doesn´t have a limited body, and also pervades His
>>> creation / property. The same question works, instead of with
>>> &
t;> able to step away, and leave His creation alone, not even for a moment.
>> That contradicts almightiness, the same way, like the paradoxon, that God
>> cannot create a stone so heavy, that he cannot lift it. I guess, this
>> paradoxon has been solved by the introduction of Jesus, who is God too, but
>
on in the universe is not a part of God´s function.
>
> Besides not being a theologist, I neither am a mathematician, but I guess,
> that this nonsymmetry of "function" is the basis for the difference between
> theism and panentheism. Jon, is there the discipline "mathematic
Jon, Jeff, list,
Peirce’s explains the difference between nominal and real definitions in
Baldwin’s Dictionary under “Nominal
<https://www.gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Nominal> .”
Love, gary
Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.e
philosophers (such as James and Royce) who are willing
to suspend such judgments and see where the arguments might lead.
Yours,
Jeff
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 10:43 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Verbal
ts out that
>> “God’ is a vernacular word and like all such words, but more than almost
>> any, is vague. 6.494…
>>
>> Therefore - I don’t see how a vague word can also refer to a single
>> individual ..
>>
>> And Peirce himself provides a definition of
aning of ‘God' with
> “the analogue of a mind” 6.502.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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: Cli
ss, that sin and sinners, actions and actors, that "have fallen from God", are not non-immanent or apart from God, but rather like a sickness of God´s. But He has a good immune system: The good.
Best regards, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at http
Jon
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:31 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
> Jon S, List,
>
>
>
> Again. What types of definitions do you take him to be providing? For
> example, is Peirce providing nominal (i.e., verbal) definitions or real
> defin
1 - 100 of 15930 matches
Mail list logo
