Gary F, Jon, Edwina, Jeff, List,
Gary F, thanks for providing Peirce's entry on 'immanent' occurring in
the *Century
Dictionary*. I believe it is potentially an essential facet of this
discussion to consider. For one thing, it leads me to consider panentheism
as possibly a viable alternative to that strict theism which has God the
Creator completely separate from His creation. For another, it might in
time help facilitate that rapprochement of science and religion which
Peirce so earnestly desired. But first, a few introductory remarks.
One thing missing in this discussion so far, and which I think is vitally
important to it, is that in the 1898 Blackboard analogy as Jon and I
discussed it on the list a year or so ago, and which he explicates and
further develops in his paper, *A Neglected Additament*, is that Peirce's
discussion in the Cambridge lecture series concerns that which 'occurred
*before*'--so to speak, since Time was not yet--again, prior to this
Universe coming into being, or, as we might say today, before the Big Bang.
For me it is in this way that the Object of the Sign is 'outside' that
Object's (God's) creation (the Universe).
Peirce strongly implies in that 1898 discussion that there might possibly
have been (perhaps yet could be; are?) other Universes, that out of
innumerable qualitative possibilities which might figure in *some*
creation, that certain ones 'took hold', were 'inscribed', and became
this, *our
Universe*. Of course Peirce is principally concerned with the pre-cosmology
(if I may put it that way) of this *particular* Universe, its coming to
have a trichotomic structure, evolving certain characters, structures, etc.
The Inscriber on that Blackboard which is to become our Universe is, for
Peirce, God. I should note that in his paper Jon adds a nuance to Peirce's
discussion, a kind of Whiteboard underpinning that Blackboard. For the
Blackboard, as I interpret it, could represent the pre-conditions of any
number of possible universes, but it is this one that is inscribed upon
*our* Blackboard, so to speak. At least that is is how I interpret Peirce's
(and Jon's) discussion. Of course any discussion about what 'occurred'
"before the Big Bang" is necessarily quite speculative and must rely on
vague analogies.
CSP: In modem philosophy [immanent] is applied to the operations of a
creator concelved as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a
creator himself, as opposed to a *transient* or *transcendent *creating and
creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of
an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of
the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God.
The cosmic viewpoint which I see as most completely expressing a
transcendent creator and creation is the Buddhistic one. Here, at least in
some schools of Mahayana Buddhism, it is said that the Buddha spun the
wheel of dharma in the creation of the world and then immediately went into
a state of Nirvana. In such a situation the creator is indeed entirely
separate from his creation post-creation.
But this is not the necessarily the case in, for example, certain Kemetic
(or, Ancient Egyptian) myths of creation (of which Peirce was familiar, I
believe), nor in certain interpretations of the Biblical ones, especially
some of those which emphasize the Trinity (e.g. John 1:1). In the Peirce
entry we read:
In the doctrine of the eternal Son revealing the Father, immanent in nature
and humanity as the life and light shining through all created things, as
the divine reason in which human reason shares, there was the recognition
of . . . the tie which binds the creation to God in the closest organic
relationship. —A. Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought
Here, the Son reveals the Father--the Creator--as "the life and light
shining through all created things, as the divine reason in which human
reason shares." In this manner of interpretation the Son represents
something of a Demiurge in a Trinity which, when interpreted as a Peircean
'genuine triadic relation', requires that the three 'persons' involved are
One, that is, that each entails the other two. One version of this
interpretation argues that the Universal Christ is the God (or better,
Demiurge) of *this* Universe, really the 'Evolutionary Love' which Peirce
outlines in his famous essay of that name. In this sense I would argue
(probably contra Jon) that panentheism is a viable alternative to a strict
theism. God remains active in the world ("God is Love") through the
'person' of the Cosmic Christ, a living and relational concept which some
contemporary interpreters, such as Matthew Fox and Richard Rohr argue, need
not at all be limited to Christianity. Perhaps thinking along these lines
could be a step towards the rapprochement of science and religion.
As I will soon offer more on this Trinitarian view, I've changed the
Subject name to suggest some of the topics I hope to introduce.
Best,
Gary R
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_6044364166760990538_m_-5660967292604555267_m_-6681027765824061955_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon, Jeff, Gary R et al.,
>
> Here’s the entry on *immanent* from the *Century Dictionary*, p. 2995. It
> is on the list of words for which Peirce wrote the entries.
>
> [[ immanent (im'a-nent), a. [= F. immanent = Sp. inmanente = Sg. It.
> immanente, < LL. immanen( t-)s, inmanen(t-)s, ppr. of immanere, inmanere,
> remain in or near, < L. in, in, + manere, remain : see remain. Cf.
> remanent, remnant.]
>
> Remaining within; indwelling.
>
> This word (in its Latin form, *immanens*) was introduced in the
> thirteenth century to express the distinction, of which Aristotle makes
> much, between doing (or acting within one's self) and making (or producing
> an external effect). An immanent action is one whose effect remains within
> the subject and within the same faculty, while a transient or transitive
> action produces an effect upon something different from the subject, or at
> least upon something different from the faculty exercised. In modem
> philosophy the word is applied to the operations of a creator concelved as
> in organic connection with the creation, and to such a creator himself, as
> opposed to a *transient* or *transcendent* creating and creator from whom
> the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of an immanent deity
> does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is
> God, but only that it either is or is in God.
>
>
>
> The workes of God, which are either inward and immanent, or outward and
> transient. —Purchas, Pilgrimage, p. 6.
>
> Conceiving, as well as projecting or resolving, are what the schoolmen
> call immanent acts of the mind, which produce nothing beyond themselves.
> But painting is a transitive act, which produces an effect distinct from
> the operation, and this effect is the picture. —JReid, Intellectual
> Powers, iv. 1.
>
> In the doctrine of the eternal Son revealing the Father, immanent in
> nature and humanity as the life and light shining through all created
> things, as the divine reason in which human reason shares, there was the
> recognition of . . . the tie which binds the creation to God in the closest
> organic relationship. —A. Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought ]]
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* 16-May-19 11:52
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited
>
>
>
> Jeff, List:
>
> It would be helpful if you could provide those actual definitions, and
> also confirm that Peirce is the one who wrote them. Only "immanent" is
> strictly relevant, since Peirce used it himself in the four manuscript
> drafts for "A Neglected Argument" that I have been citing. Moreover, my
> Semeiotic Argumentation does not rely on either word; what matters is that
> every Sign is determined by an Object *other than itself*--i.e., the
> Object is always *external *to, *independent *of, and *unaffected *by the
> Sign.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:05 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jon S, Gary R, all,
>
> For those who insist that the "semiotic" argument that God is
> transcendent and not immanent is a good argument (i.e., that the universe
> is a vast sign, and every sign must have an object distinct from itself),
> let me ask: what conception of immanence and transcendence do you have in
> mind? Peirce provides definitions of these two terms in the Century
> Dictionary. There are a number of senses from which to pick. Which do you
> have in mind when you make that argument? Which of those senses do you take
> to be informing Peirce's remarks in the NA and elsewhere that God is not
> being conceived in such a way as to be immanent in the universe, the
> cosmos, nature, the three universes of experience, or what have you?
>
> Consider the ideals of beauty, goodness and truth. In what sense are such
> ideals immanent or transcendent with respect their being in, a part of, or
> separate from the universe, the cosmos, nature, the three universes of
> experience, or what have you?
>
> --Jeff
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_6044364166760990538_m_-5660967292604555267_m_-6681027765824061955_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-----------------------------
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 .
