Søren, List: SB: But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness ...
... then the first chapter of John's Gospel is not talking about the same Logos, since it says that it "became flesh and dwelt among us" in the human person of Jesus. As previously discussed, Peirce stated explicitly in three different drafts of "A Neglected Argument" that God is NOT "immanent in" Nature or the three Universes of Experience, but rather is the Creator of everything in them without exception. Lest he be misunderstood, he even underlined "not" in all three places. I do not see how this stance can plausibly be reconciled with panentheism, unless I am completely misunderstanding the meaning of that term. Regards, Jon On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > Jon, List > > > > But if the Logos is logic as semiotics and is emerging as thirdness or the > tendency to take habits in all nature of Secondness as Stjernfelt argues so > Well in *Natural propositions* and feeling is present in all matter > (Hylozoism) and all three categories arise as universes from pure Zero, why > should its self-organization not match Eckhart’s idea of Jesus > consciousness born in every man, if “the father” is pure Zero and the holy > spirit or ghost is thirdness as self-organization, meaning that human > consciousness as the aware man is the living conscious realization in the > flesh of the origin of our being? Peirce’s naturalization encompassed pure > Zero as the transcendental a part of nature and us. It fits a form of > Gnostic panentheism, is my abduction. It fits with his mystical experience. > It is esoterical pure mysticism encompassing rationality and science > without a conscious personal creator. The basic postulate is that we can > have access to the Godhead through a developed consciousness. This is > basically what Bhakti Vedanta and much of Buddhism – and in my view Meister > Eckhart in Christianity – say, and why he was excommunicated from the > Catholic church, because he was – as many scholars has pointed out – too > close to Adi Shankara’s thinking. It is pretty much Suzuki’s point of view > too http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/d-t-suzuki-mysticism- > christian-and-buddhist.pdf and he was hired by Paul Carus the editor of > the Monist. Of cause we here have Emerson and the trandscendentalist’s view > too. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 2. november 2016 22:43 > *To:* John F Sowa > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > > > John, List: > > > > The question still arises of what to make of the statement in John's > Gospel that "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." Neither nature > nor its laws can be substituted for Logos in this case. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 11/2/2016 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > His favorite Gospel was that of John, but did he ever quote its > first chapter? "In the beginning was the Word [logos] ... > > > Since his father taught him Greek at a very early age, I'm sure > that New Testament Greek was one of the first texts he studied. > > Given his interest in logic, Peirce may have preferred this gospel > because of its use of the word 'logos'. > > Around 400 BC, Heraclitus (Fragment 1) wrote > > all things come to be according to this logos > > > In the first century AD, John wrote > > In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God. > And God was the Logos. It was in the beginning with God. > All things came to be through it, and without it nothing > came to be that has come to be. > > > They both used 'panta' (all things) and 'gignomai' (come to be). > Heraclitus did not use the word 'Theos' (God), but John equated > Theos with Logos. Some scholars claim that John was influenced > by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote many volumes (in Greek) to > reconcile the Torah with Greek philosophy. > > Other scholars commented on the similarity between Logos as > Heraclitus used it, Dao (or Tao) as Lao Zi used it, and Dharma > as Gautama Buddha used it. Perhaps that was not a coincidence, > because they were approximate contemporaries, and they lived > near the trade routes (Silk Road) from China to Asia Minor. > > In his _Ethica_, Spinoza used the words 'God' (Deus) and 'nature' > (Natura) almost interchangeably. When asked whether he believed > in God, Einstein replied, "I believe in the God of Spinoza". > > The equation of God with the laws of nature by Spinoza and Einstein > should be compared to Logos, Dao, and Dharma. The Latin 'natura' > is the Scholastic translation of the Greek 'physis'. The English > word 'physics' is an 18th century synonym for 'natural philosophy'. > > Peirce was also familiar with Aristotle's use of 'logos'. The > first paragraph of _De Interpretatione_ (in Greek and in various > Scholastic commentaries) was likely to be another influence: > > First we must determine what are noun (onoma) and verb (rhêma); and > after that, what are negation (apophasis), assertion (kataphasis), > proposition (apophansis), and sentence (logos). Those in speech (phonê) > are symbols (symbola) of affections (pathêmata) in the psyche, and > those written (graphomena) are symbols of those in speech. As letters > (grammata), so are speech sounds not the same for everyone. But they > are signs (sêmeia) primarily of the affections in the psyche, which > are the same for everyone, and so are the objects (pragmata) of which > they are likenesses (homoiômata). On these matters we speak in the > treatise on the psyche, for it is a different subject. (16a1) > > > This is my translation, after comparing several English versions > and producing a very literal translation that emphasizes the > original Greek terms -- as Peirce would have read them. > > I discuss that paragraph and its relationship to writings by Peirce, > the Scholastics, and others in http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf > > 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 .
