Dear Jon I admit that some of those quotes spread doubts about the immanence, but I think one has to reflect on the Concordia transcendentalist’s influence on Peirce. Emmerson for one was a panentheist. There are other quotes that seem to support immanence and not a personal creator: Yet we must not assume that the qualities arose separate and came into relation afterward. It was just the reverse. The general indefinite potentiality became limited and heterogeneous. Those who express the idea to themselves by saying that the Divine Creator determined so and so may be incautiously clothing the idea in a garb that is open to criticism, but it is, after all, substantially the only philosophical answer to the problem. Namely, they represent the ideas as springing into a preliminary stage of being by their own inherent firstness. But so springing up, they do not spring up isolated; for if they did, nothing could unite them. They spring up in reaction upon one another, and thus into a kind of existence. This reaction and this existence these persons call the mind of God. I really think there is no objection to this except that it is wrapped up in figures of speech, instead of having the explicitness that we desire in science. For all you know of "minds" is from the actions of animals with brains or ganglia like yourselves, or at furthest like a cockroach. To apply such a word to God is precisely like the old pictures which show him like an aged man leaning over to look out from above a cloud. Considering the vague intention of it, as conceived by the non-theological artist, it cannot be called false, but rather ludicrously figurative. (CP 6. 199.)
Best Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 12. oktober 2016 04:09 To: Søren Brier Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology Søren, List: SB: I think your problem is solved by Panentheism, which accept the divine to be both transcendent and immanent. Again, I am now leaning against trying to apply any such label to Peirce. Granted, one of the three drafts that I quoted from R 843 indicates that God is not merely immanent in nature; and this might plausibly be interpreted as compatible with panentheism, at least as you have described it here. However, the other two drafts both clearly state that God is not immanent in nature and is not immanent in the three Universes. That being the case, if immanence is required for panentheism, then it appears that Peirce was not a panentheist. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk<mailto:sb....@cbs.dk>> wrote: Dear Helmut I think your problem is solved by Panentheism, which accept the divine to be both transcendent and immanent. Thus the Tohu va Bohu or pure Zero is the transcendent, which as the first step in creation produces Firstness as real possibilities of forms of existence, combined with the tendency to take habits, which could be interpreted as The holy Ghost, which when stabilized produces real Secondness and goes on to order it through the self-organizing drive of thirdness. Now God = the Father in this scenario , is not a person because it is pure potential. A person or a subject need both Secondness and thirdness to manifest with a consciousness and a will. (Peirce writes: Since God, in His essential character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we call consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or some part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God probably has no consciousness. CP 6.489) The manifestation could be The son, which can both manifest as a person like Christ and/or Krishna and as our inner awareness. As Meister Eckhart says the Sons is born again and again in every person and it is only through the birth of the son in our consciousness that the way to Gods is possible. This interpretation is pretty Gnostic and pure mystical and as such fits with much Cristian mysticism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, Rumi’s Sufism and so on collected in what is usually called the Perennial philosophy. This view on the divine has been ad odds with most theistic religion that works with a personified creator. Best Søren
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .