Transcendence is half a binary. Binaries are all suspect. Generally they can be assumed to be one rather than two. Explicitly there is no way to assume a creator without assuming that a triadic reality exists in which Love, for example, is both what binary language calls transcendent and immanent. Other suspect binaries are heart/mind and physical/metaphysical. To accept any half as the truth is to miss what is the case. A triadic view would see such "opposites" not as either-or's, but as part of the same universal sea which we can perceive only in part and which we experience as evolving,
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, list > > I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I > wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which assume an > agential force that transcends time and space. My problem with pantheism, > which does NOT have this transcendental agency but instead, refers o an > 'immanent agent' , is - what is their definition of 'god'? > > I don't think that psychology or semiotics can stop people from acting > out their emotional natures! > > Edwina > > > > On Sun 03/02/19 1:57 PM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, list, > You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human > psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and > following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. > That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath > and sloth are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate > personal reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role." > > I think, that these sins are of psychological and systemical and semiotic > nature. Therefore, sciences like psychology, systems theory and semiotics > can play a role. However, they cannot change human instinctive nature in > the way that they (the sciences) could take away the reasons for these > sins, but can help people (also people in leading positions) to reflect > their proneness to them, how they can better overcome them and watch their > own behaviour (civilize them). > > Religions play the role, that they reduce the sins inside the belief > community, but amplify them between the belief communities. > > Separate theologies cannot help, I think, but some kind of meta-theology > can. Atheists and theists will not change their beliefs, but to get them > round the conference table, I think it is good to reduce (temporarily for > this purpose) the God-concept to the common denominator "pantheism", or > "panentheism". I think, "panentheism" is better, because it does not deny > every kind of separatedness or otherness of God, so cannot be denounced by > theists as completely atheistic. > > Best, > Helmut > > 03. Februar 2019 um 15:24 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" > wrote: > > > Gary R > > 1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion in a > society. > > I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited view > of god' or a chasm between science and religion. Such a viewpoint suggests > that atheism, my view, 'contributes to the ills of society' - and of course > I wouldn't agree with that. > > Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it - or > not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of debate. > Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence - and its > axioms are fallible. > > I don't see how anything can 'bridge this gap'. > > I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological > nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either > will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - > the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth > are psychological and can only be dealt with by deliberate personal > reasoning and action. Neither science nor religion plays any role. > > And therefore - nothing to do with gunpowder, fossil fuels or Facebook. If > mankind didn't have gunpowder - he's use spears, arrows and poisons...to > deal with his greed, envy, wrath etc. Fossil fuels have enabled the growth > of technologies that have benefited mankind - from medical care, to > heating and cooling our homes, to better sanitation and health and water > supplies, to enabling more people to be provided with food and care, and > travel and so on. As for Facebook - no comment...other than gossip is > gossip. > > 2] I will not get into any discussion about JAS's view of god and Peirce - > since I disagree with his interpretation and consider that his own personal > theism plays a large role in that outline. > > My caution is that semiosis is a rational action, an action, as Peirce > said, of Mind - and we should be careful how we define Mind. > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 02/02/19 11:54 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected] sent: > > Jon, list, > > Jon wrote: > > I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in > this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the > major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion. > Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external to and > independent of the sign" . . ., rather than something greater than but > still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he also stated plainly, "In its > relation to the Object, the Sign is passive ... the Object remaining > unaffected". . . > > > One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign > (Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique, > that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs and Objects: > that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to speak, and in > their relationship. > > As for panentheism, it is generally held that it is an attempt to avoid > separating > God from a (created) universe (as theism does) while at the same time not > identifying God with the universe (pantheism). Panentheism, as you know, > holds that God not only pervades the cosmos and all that this universe > includes and involves, but also transcends it in the sense of > simultaneously being beyond space and time. > > [In my view it is possible that the God of all possible Universes this > Cosmos is not necessarily to be identified with the God of our Universe. > I'll admit, however, that that sounds a bit odd even to me; yet I've been > entertaining the idea for many years now (this is not, btw, an argument for > the multi-universe theories prevalent in our time)]. > > > JAS: Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God, > but also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe > warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them. > > > I agree with you that at first blush that Peirce's views about Signs and > the Universe "warrant, perhaps even require" something like the theistic > view you've been arguing for. Yet, while I think the pantheistic view has > been generally debunked, perhaps the panentheistic notion that God creates > but also transcends space and time can help in your "attempt to revise > the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion." > > Finally, in my view, historically and to this day, our idea of God has > been far too small, far too limited, and often dogmatic and doctrinaire, > striking some (but not all) scientists as at least naive and typically > incompatible with science. I think these limited views of God have in ways > contributed to many of the "wicked problems" of our world, not the least of > which is the chasm that has been developing for centuries between science > and religion. It should be noted, however, that science, at least as it has > led to the development of socially and environmentally problematic > technologies (for example, gun powder, fossil fuels, Facebook), has itself > contributed to the emergence of a number of horrifying"wicked problems. > > I believe that Peirce's science, phenomenology, logic as semeiotic, > cosmology, scientific metaphysics, and theological insights might in time > help us to bridge the gap between religion and science, perhaps to finally > contribute evenkmj to solving some of those "wicked problems." > > Best, > > Gary > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Gary R., List: >> >> Thank you for your very kind words. I look forward to further feedback >> and discussion. >> >> I actually debated formatting the summary just as you proposed, but >> ultimately decided to add the fourth bullet as tacit acknowledgement that >> identifying God as the Object that determines the Universe as a Sign is not >> strictly entailed by the syllogism itself. Instead, it follows from the >> other considerations that I highlighted toward the end of my original post. >> >> I am curious to learn exactly how you (or others) would define >> panentheism in this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to >> revise the major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible >> conclusion. Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something >> external to and independent of the sign" (R 145; 1905), rather than >> something greater than but still somehow inclusive of the Sign; and he >> also stated plainly, " In its relation to the Object, the Sign is >> passive ... the Object remaining unaffected" (EP 2:544n22; 1906). >> >> Frankly, I am seeking not only to argue for Peirce's views about God, but >> also to demonstrate that his views about Signs and the Universe >> warranted those views about God--perhaps even required them. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:56 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon, list, >>> >>> This is, in my opinion, a most impressive semeiotic argument (really, an >>> extended argumentation in Peirce's sense) for the Reality of God. This >>> is to say that it would seem to me to be an explication of Peirce's (and, I >>> assume, your) religious views as they relate to his sign theory, >>> representing a kind of outline of a Peircean semeiotic theology (of >>> course Peirce himself sometimes argued contra the theologians). It >>> brings together, at least as far as I can tell, the most salient >>> passages in Peirce relating to that argument in a forceful logical tour >>> de force. I have read many papers and several books on Peirce's religious >>> views, but I have found them all significantly wanting in some respects. >>> So, I'm eagerly anticipating studying your argumentation to see how it >>> holds up upon examination. >>> >>> For now, my only very, very slight 'adjustment' to your post would be to >>> make your four summary points, three, since they obviously constitute a >>> syllogism. So: >>> >>> - Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. >>> - The entire Universe is a Sign. >>> - Therefore, the entire Universe is determined by an Object other >>> than itself; and this we call God. >>> >>> I can imagine that you'll get all sorts of push back from this deductive >>> argument, for example, from those who consider themselves panentheists. But >>> the response to that sort of difference of opinion is simply that what >>> you're arguing for is Peirce's view of the matter, one which sees God >>> as the Creator of the Three Universes; and how this is clearly intimately >>> tied up with his theory of signs. >>> >>> As for purely logical issues that may arise upon examination of your >>> deductive argument, you'll have to take these as they come, I suppose. And >>> some will surely argue that such a deductive argument can only be of so >>> much value since, as they might see it, faith in God is not essentially a >>> logical matter. But for those philosophers and semioticians who already >>> hold a Creator view of God, the argument surely offers considerable support. >>> >>> I have only read your argument twice so far, and have not yet seen any >>> logical flaws; of course others may. However, the very clarity of your >>> argumentation makes me wonder anew about my own view of this matter. I >>> have, perhaps, once again begun to reflect on my own tendencies toward >>> panentheism. I had previously thought that my religious views were quite >>> close to Peirce's. But since I find your argument as following logically >>> and naturally from Peirce's semeiotic, the intra-personal tension it's >>> creating--between theism and panentheism--can only be of value to me in the >>> long run. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> Gary Richmond >>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >>> Communication Studies >>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >>> 718 482-5690 >>> >>>> >>>> >>> > ----------------------------- 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 .
