Stephen: The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines because of the meaning of its L. root.
Can you clarify how transcendence relates to the scope and scale of predicates? Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPad > On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
