List, Stephen > On Feb 4, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > L root is not on my radar. Does it have something to do with servers. > Transcendence is in my view a positioning of something above something else. > It is a verb mainly. It precedes predicates. As a thing in itself I see it as > related to non-local consciousness. I do not see it as a major term other > than an indication of scope. The limits of scope are themselves opaque. > Scales the same. The nature of transcendence is nothing beyond its function > as a localizer unless you wish to call it a quality of being, which I would > not do. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose <http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose> Hmm… Behind CSP view of the continuity of predicates, the nature of his logical graphs and the nature of evolution is transcendence. How does your view account for emergence?
Cheers Jerry > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:58 AM Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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 <http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:13 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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 >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To >> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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 >> <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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 >> <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 .
