Kirsti, Clark, Gary, list:
Are the following questions the same? “Is God general?”, “What would God be?”, “What is God?”, “quid sit deus?” To ask if God is general is to ask what the idea or the form of God is. This is a Platonic question and “"Idea," nearer Plato <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato>'s idea of *ἰδέα*, denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for getting fully represented, regardless of any person's faculty or impotence to represent it. *“T*he word "God," so "capitalised" (as we Americans say), is *the* definable proper name, signifying *Ens necessarium*[1] <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God#cite_note-1>; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience.” “For the Universe has three children, born at one time, which reappear, under different names, in every system of thought, whether they be called cause, operation, and effect; or, more poetically, Jove, Pluto, Neptune; or, theologically, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son; but which we will call here, the Knower, the Doer, and the Sayer. These stand respectively for the love of truth, for the love of good, and for the love of beauty.” ~Emerson, the Poet "And very unlike a divine man would he be, who is unable to count one, two, three..." Plato, Laws Book VII As per meaning/symbol/mediation/Thirdness: The way begets one; One begets two; Two begets three; Three begets the myriad creatures... ~Lau 42 It appears quid sit deus and one two three is an ancient idea, indeed. "One, Two, Three. Already written." ~Peirce, Guess at the Riddle "*Socrates.* One, two, three; but where, my dear Timaeus, is the fourth..." Plato, Timaeus Best, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark, > > Thank you very much for your posts on this thread. Greatly appreciated! > > Also, Neglegted Argument has been my favorite piece since I started with > CSP. The question of the reality of God has always seemed to me to be a > critical question to pose in front of anything Peirce wrote. > > However, in the following you only take up a dual distinction, between > what exists and what is real. Where is the virtual? Where is triadicity? > > > CLARK GOBLE 10.6.2016 03:36: > >> >> "I should probably add that with Peirce we also need to distinguish >> between what exists from what is real. Again in nominalistic systems >> of thought they often are tied very closely together. One can see this >> aspect of Peirce’s thought with his conception of God where God is >> real but not actual. I confess I have trouble with that sort of >> conception of religion, but it undeniably shows off the sorts of >> distinctions Peirce carefully makes. (That notion of God can >> especially be seen in “A Neglected Argument."" >> >> To my mind "Neglegted Argument on the Reality of God" is not at all about > a notion (a conception) of God, but about the meaning inherent in the idea > of the Holy Trinity. > > In relation to Peirce's triadic categories, there is no question which > one came first. > > In relation to medieval dispute on nominalism and realism, CSP took the > critical question to be: Are genarals real? > > So, one could ask: Is God general? - But this is a question I have never > come across with. I wonder whether you, or anyone else have? > > The Holy Trinity presents not just a, but The Symbol of Christianity. For > true believers it does not appear only a representation of something not > actually present. The very symbol has the effect of making actually present > something which is already virtually present in the soul. > > Until the modern age, God, good and virtuous were understood as inherently > tied together. With the rise and victory of nominalistic thought they > became separated. Still, in nomen only, not in virtu. > > What you wrote on this thread, Clark, not only touched my intellect, but > also my heart and soul. > > Kirsti > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
