Gary F, Jon, List,
[Note: this is a response to two message, one from Gary f, one from JAS]
Gary F wrote:
Gf: Cosmotheandric??
Cynthia Bourgeault on Raimon Ranikkar's term Cosmotheandric:
*Cosmotheandric *is the term Panikkar invents to describe this dynamic
relational ground. The word itself is the fusion of *cosmos *(world),
*theos *(God), and *andros* (man) and suggests a continuous
intercirculation among these three distinct planes of existence in a single
motion of self-communicating love.
Gf: Anyway, what I have to say in this post is very much about the
continuity of semeiosis, so let’s not drop that from the subject line just
yet.
GR: I'm not sure why you suggested that we might 'drop' continuity (of
semiosis) from the Subject line. I see no reason to drop any of the three
terms of the Subject of the thread, 'Trinity', 'Continuity', and
Cosmotheandric' from the Subject line for now, and least of all
'Continuity'.
Gf: I think Jon has done a good job of representing Peirce’s views on the
Universe as Sign, and the reality of God, but I think he’s, well,
*transcended* anything Peirce said by placing before us a dichotomous
choice of the Creator as either immanent or transcendent with respect to
the Universe (or the three Universes). After all, Peirce did not say that
God was “transcendent,” and although he ruled out “immanence” in the drafts
of NA, he did not mention it one way or the other in the published article.
GR: I agree that Jon has and continuous to do "a good job of representing
Peirce’s views on the Universe as Sign." As for the "dichotomous choice of
the Creator as either immanent or transcendent," I have introduced
'Trinity' into the discussion especially in consideration of both
problematics: (1) Peirce not saying anything about God's "transcendence"
but, (2) his ruling out "immanence" in the NA drafts, while not mentioning
it at all in the article itself.
Gf: I think your trinitarian(?) option is as logically viable, and perhaps
more pragmatically and morally viable, than Jon’s position as I understand
it. But for now I’d like to stick with semiotics rather than delving into
ethics or pragmatism just yet.
GR: I also think that the "trinitarian option" (exactly that) is
logically, pragmatically, morally and, I might add, aesthetically more
viable than Jon's position, especially for those who are not conservative
Christians. I hope that it may eventually have some resonance for both
religious and non-religious people. Meanwhile, of course you are free to
limit your contributions to this thread to semeiotics, although I am
choosing another course.
GR: Super-briefly stated (so please allow for further explication of it),
the gist of my trinitarian argument is that for those who entertain the
notion of the 'Cosmic Christ' (I mentioned Fox and Rohr, neither of whom
limit it at all to Christianity), *one might argue that God (Abba) is
transcendent while Christ (the Word) is immanent, and as Christians say, we
come to know God the Father through God the Son.* How the Person of the
Spirit comes into play is much too difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize
here.
GR: The trinitarian argument may suggest a way around this observation:
Gf: If the Universe is a Sign whose Object is God, then we must ask *how
that Sign can convey knowledge* of its Object. This is problematic because
the complete absence of God from the Universe of experience would preclude
any acquaintance with, or collateral experience of, that Object.
GR: I do not think that Jon's suggestion (based on Peirce's re: Boswell)
that, lacking collateral knowledge, we can know God as, say, we know
Peirce. For there are many trusted accounts (plus adjunct records, deeds,
marriage licenses, etc.) of those who *did* know Peirce personally, did
have direct collateral knowledge of him. Christians say that we know God
the Father through the Son (Matthew 11:27) and that the Son, the Word, is
God (in the Unity of the Trinity): John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the context of the
idea of the Word being the Cosmic Christ, one begins to imagine that it
might be possible to know at least something of God through the Son, the
Word--the Cosmic Christ speaking even now to us in myriad ways.
Gary f wrote, then quoted me:
Gf: Now, I’m familiar with a fair amount of Mahayana scripture, and I’ve
never come across anything like this:
GR:* "*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."
Gf: I’d appreciate it if you could cite a source for that. (If it’s right,
I must have been reading the wrong texts!)
GR: I spent at least a decade and a half reading Buddhist writings,
including Mahayana scripture, Tibetan Buddhist tantras, accounts of the
sermons of Zen masters (for example, and esp. Rinzai), etc. as well as as
much of other religious traditions' texts (and commentaries on these, and
other secondary literature) as I could digest, including Vedantist, Muslim,
Taoist, etc. texts (much more, of course, including First Nations Peoples'
oral 'texts') I am quite certain that I read what is quoted above,
although it may turn out not be from Mahayana scripture, more likely from
the transcription of a Zen masters words. A Google search didn't bring up
anything, so I'll have to assume I read it in a book that cannot be
assessed on line.
Jon wrote:
JAS: 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: As I mentioned in my comments to Gary f above, and while I reject
pantheism, I think there is a case to be made for panentheism. However, it
requires something at least like the idea of the Cosmic Christ. Those least
likely to entertain this notion, that what is panentheistic is the working
in the world of the Cosmic Christ, are probably conservative religious
people of any tradition..
Jon wrote:
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: I apologize for apparently getting it backwards, since you write that
it is *not* the Blackboard, but the Whiteboard that represents "the
particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be" (CSP). I
will have to read your paper again, something I've been meaning to do in
any case. You have to admit, that it's a subtle and nuanced argument which
you present there.
Jon quoted me as having previously written:
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.
JAS: This cannot be what *Peirce *had in mind by a non-immanent God, since
he explicitly described His creation of the Universe as *ongoing*.
I did not mean to suggest that *whatsoever *in respect of Christianity. And
since I have not been able to find the source from which I extracted that
notion, I am prepared to drop it in respect to Buddhism as well.
JAS: The conclusion of my Semeiotic Argumentation . . . 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: My trinitarian view is that the Universe is perpetually being acted
upon by that Person of the Trinity which we Christians call the Son, the
Word; that it is through the God the Son that God the Father acts on the
Universe. At present I reject the attribute of impassibility since I
believe that the Universe *does* have an effect on God the Father through
His relationship with the Son via the Holy Spirit which mediates between
them.
Jon quoted me:
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.
JAS: 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. . . . 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*.
GR: Your being "a fairly conservative Christian, you will probably find my
entire argument unpalatable. On the other hand, we seem to be in full
agreement that "John 1:1 affirms not only that the *logos *was *with* God,
but also that the *logos **was* God . . .and John 1:3 affirms that all
things were *made* by the *logos*." I will, however, retract my use of the
term 'Demiurge' (I think I qualified it to "something like" or "a sort
of") to characterize the Cosmic Christ, especially if, as you did, one
defines "Demiruge" as 'blind agent'. I was thinking more of its use in
certain theological systems as meaning a being who is in one sense
subordinate to the Supreme Being , but who is yet Creator of the Material
World. But, again, the term can only lead to confusion, so I retract it and
will no longer use it.
Best,
Gary R
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:08 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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 .
