Helmut, List: My understanding of "pantheism" is that it entails that God is "immanent in nature," so Peirce's explicit denial of this in three different drafts of "A Neglected Argument" is pretty decisive evidence against deeming him a pantheist. It seems to me that Edwina's adjustment--stating that Mind (rather than God) is immanent in nature--is more properly classified as pan *psychism*, and I do not believe that it is terribly controversial to apply that particular label to Peirce. At least some of the other formulations that you offered sound to me more like *panentheism* than pantheism, but my impression is that there are a lot of different varieties, and I am not personally familiar with the nuances.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > Regarding the question, whether Peirce was a pantheist or not, I was > thinking about the meaning of "immanent". If it means that something is > contained (nonlocally in this case), like as an epiphenomenon or a trait of > something, then something "immanent" implies not being the creator of this > thing. But if God is the creator, and still is present everywhere and > everywhen, i.e. nonlocally and nontemporally, might this still be > pantheism, though without immanence? In this case the universe does not > contain God, but the other way round. And the immanence is also the other > way: God is not immanent in the universe (or the three of them), but the > universe is immanent in God? No, maybe one cannot say so, if one believes > in creation as a process, because then in the beginning there must have > been a God without a universe. But on the other hand, this might be a too > anthropocentric concept of God and of creation: Maybe it is not a linear > process, like a carpenter making a chair? > About possibilities: Are they creative or privative? Is a possibility an > invention, or something that remains when a lot of other items in question > have been identified as, or turned out to be, impossibilities? With God as > firstness, it should be the first (creative possibility) , I guess. But > this might be a hen-and-egg-question, which suggests that there was a > beginning: Either a nothing, or an everything. But maybe there was no > beginning (like eg. buddhists claim). > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
