Gary R., List:
GR: 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.
Again, based on Peirce's own definition of "immanent," his multiple
explicit statements that God is *not *immanent in Nature or the three
Universes entail not only that the Universe is not *itself *God, but also
that the Universe is not *in *God or "in organic connection with" God. I
take this to rule out both pantheism and panentheism, respectively; but
perhaps you have a different definition of the latter in mind.
GR: I should note that in his paper Jon adds a nuance to Peirce's
discussion, a kind of Whiteboard underpinning that Blackboard.
A minor correction--I did not use the term Whiteboard for something
"underpinning" the Blackboard, but rather for a melded group of white marks *on
*the Blackboard that represents "a Platonic world" of *real possibilities*.
This Whiteboard is *continuous*, but its continuity is entirely derived
from and dependent on that of the underlying Blackboard. It is then "a
discontinuous mark" (RLT 162; 1898) on *one *such Whiteboard that
represents "the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen
to be" (CP 6.206-208; 1898).
GR: 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.
This cannot be what *Peirce *had in mind by a non-immanent God, since he
explicitly described His creation of the Universe as *ongoing*.
CSP: This development of Reason consists, you will observe, in embodiment,
that is, in manifestation. The creation of the universe, which did not take
place during a certain busy week, in the year 4004 B.C., but is going on
today and never will be done, is this very development of Reason. (CP
1.615, EP 2:255; 1903)
CSP: "Do you believe this Supreme Being to have been the creator of the
universe?" Not so much *to have been* as to be now creating the universe
...
I think we must regard Creative Activity as an inseparable attribute of God.
"What do you imagine the present functions of this Supreme Being toward the
universe to be?" Creation, as just said ... (CP 6.505-507; c. 1906)
The conclusion of my Semeiotic Argumentation is that the entire Universe is
*determined* by an Object other than itself, which we call God. This does
not entail *deism*--i.e., that He created the entire Universe in such a way
that He subsequently had no further relation to it whatsoever. On the
contrary, it simply means that the Universe *is not part of* Him, which is
the traditional divine attribute of transcendence; and the Universe *has no
effect on *Him, which is the traditional divine attribute of
impassibility. In fact, if I am right that the entire Universe is an
example of what Peirce called a *perfect *Sign, then it "is perpetually
being acted upon by its object" (EP 2:545n25; 1906).
GR: 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.
As a fairly conservative Christian from a theological standpoint--certainly
more so than Peirce, and probably more so than most--I am very wary of
(literally) unorthodox statements about the Trinity. Nevertheless, this
suggestion brings to mind Peirce's remarks in several early manuscript
drafts for "The Basis of Pragmaticism" that in EGs, the Graphist
corresponds to "either Plastic Nature or the Artifex of Nature" (R
280:86[29]; c. 1905), where the latter is God Himself and former is "a
blind agent intermediate between God and the world" (R 870:36; 1901). As
you might imagine, I prefer "the Artifex of Nature"--John 1:1 affirms not
only that the *logos *was *with* God, but also that the *logos **was* God
(rather than a Demiurge or blind agent); and John 1:3 affirms that all
things were *made* by the *logos*.
I look forward to seeing what else you have to say!
Regards,
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 3:24 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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*
>
-----------------------------
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 .
