Gary R., List: GR: We've discussed in at least one of the cosmological threads of late the way in which Peirce does ascribe one sort of being to God, namely, Reality. On the other hand, Peirce held that to refer to God as Existing was clearly wrong, perhaps fetishistic, since existence concerns matter: action/reaction. The question which all of this raises for Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen as both the very incarnation of God and truly man) is one I'm wholly unprepared to consider at this time.
I would *love *to consider this question, but I have no idea whether or where Peirce might have addressed it. His favorite Gospel was that of John, but did he ever quote its first chapter? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, List, > > John Sowa wrote: > > Gary Richmond wrote: > >> I think that [Peirce] was a non-traditional Christian--he once > > referred to his views as buddheo-Christian > > > Those two traditions are not necessarily in conflict. > > > > I agree that there are indeed points where Buddhism and Christianity can > be seen to intersect, places where one finds correspondences. It is my > sense that this is more likely so in consideration of zen buddhism and > mystical christianity than in more traditional forms of either religion > (although it is not altogether lacking there either, as in , for example, > the *humanity* expressed in both religions). Merton shows some of these > correspondences very clearly (I read all I could find by both him and > Suzuki in my 20's). I would add, however, that I personally find radical > differences as well, but this is not the place to get into those. > > John also wrote: > > > Note, > for example, the writings of Thomas Merton. For an overview, see > http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/thomas-mer > ton-and-dialogue-buddhism > > An interesting point in that article: > In Ihis correspondence with Suzuk [. . .] Merton refers to the doctrine > of analogy in Aquinas by > which it was just as legitimate, in one sense, to say of God that > he is non-being as to affirm God is being, since God so transcends > being as we know it that any attribution of being as we know it > would mislead. > > > This is an interesting point indeed. We've discussed in at least one of > the cosmological threads of late the way in which Peirce does ascribe one > sort of being to God, namely, Reality. On the other hand, Peirce held that > to refer to God as Existing was clearly wrong, perhaps fetishistic, since > existence concerns matter: action/reaction. The question which all of this > raises for Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen > as both the very incarnation of God* and* truly man) is one I'm wholly > unprepared to consider at this time. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:26 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> On 10/29/2016 11:55 PM, >> >> Gary Richmond wrote: >> >>> I think that [Peirce] was a non-traditional Christian--he once >>> referred to his views as buddheo-Christian >>> >> >> Those two traditions are not necessarily in conflict. Note, >> for example, the writings of Thomas Merton. For an overview, see >> http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/thomas-mer >> ton-and-dialogue-buddhism >> >> An interesting point in that article: >> >>> In his correspondence with Suzuki (the two finally met in New York >>> in 1964), Merton refers to the doctrine of analogy in Aquinas by >>> which it was just as legitimate, in one sense, to say of God that >>> he is non-being as to affirm God is being, since God so transcends >>> being as we know it that any attribution of being as we know it >>> would mislead. >>> >> >> John > >
----------------------------- 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 .
