Mary, List, You wrote:
ML: You say "How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is much too difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize here.” I totally agree, but I do think its absence in our discussion causes some of the (my) confusion. Can you explain how The Holy Spirit works in this discussion? ***GR: I did not mean to suggest that a discussion of the place of the Holy Spirit shouldn't figure in this discussion and, eventually, perhaps even prominently, especially because it hasn't been given sufficient attention, well, most anywhere. But in my very short summary of 'Trinity' in context of Peirce's semeiotic and metaphysics, I found that I was not able to say anything meaningful in a few sentences. Of course, more to come. ML: It seems to me an/the essential aspect of God; it is what makes God God. There is God the father, God the son. And God the Holy Spirit. *** I'm glad you've begun the discussion of the place of the Spirit in trinitarian thinking, and while I would agree that is is 'an' essential aspect of God, I don't see how it could be considered 'the' essential aspect'. As you wrote, "There is God the father, God the son. And God the Holy Spirit." Since you agree that God is these three persons, I can't see how it is that the Spirit "makes God God." If you could unpack that a bit, it would be helpful. ML: The Nicene Creed, in particular the Filioque doctrine, is very much related to our discussion. The Filioque means “and son”— and one interpretation of the Nicene Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, not just the Father. The Eastern and Western churches split over this difference. And there are controversies in non Christian religions. Why does part of the controversy not reverse the order and state that the Father and Son proceeded from the Holy Spirit? ***At this point and, for me at *any *point, I would prefer not to get into theological discussions as such. As you noted, the Filioque controversy resulted in the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, the Eastern Church holding that the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, the Western Church that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (or, from the Father through the Son). I am concerned that such theological discussion could not only muddy the discussion but could get us completely off track. Having said that I'd be very interested in why you wrote: (1) "there are (related?) controversies in non Christian religions (would you give examples of these?) and why you asked (2) "Why does part of the controversy not reverse the order and state that the Father and Son proceeded from the Holy Spirit?"That is a most provocative question, I would say! ML: In a sense the trinity is analogous to the concepts of firstness, secondness, and thirdness of semiotics. And in “Neglected Argument for the Reality of God” the play of musement explains the creation of ideas, empirical testing of ideas presented as an hypothesis, and a decision based on the result of the testing of the idea. Firstness depends on thirdness, which is law, not the law but a law. I see the three aspects in musement very much like the Holy Trinity. There is no beginning or ending. ***I am fairly sure that you will get push back in this thread from your notion that "the trinity is analogous to the concepts of firstness, secondness, and thirdness of semiotics." Some here will, perhaps, suggest that, rather, the trinity may be analogous to the three Universes of Experience of metaphysics. Be that as it may, I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, that these three (categories or Universes) in a genuine trichotomic relationship require each other *in that genuineness*. But I would not say that 1ns "depends" on 3ns, but rather that 3ns involves 2ns and 1ns. But that is but one of 6 possible vectors (paths) through a genuine trichotomic relationship, not the only one. ML: Substitute firstness with Father, or firstness with Holy Spirit, and … basically, stop to consider all of the various permutations of 1/2/3 with F/S/HS. . . .To accept all of the relations between them (1/2/3 with F/S/HS) we have a process like semiosis, not a fixed hierarchy or chronology. ***In my trinitarian researches I believe I have found all these permutations of 1ns/2ns/3ns: (both (a) three possible placements of the triadic elements around the trikon as well as (b) the 6 vectors, or paths through a genuine trichotomic relationship). Perhaps several of these permutations may have relevance, but for now I would suggest that from a Peircean standpoint that what is possibly most suggestive for our trinitarian inquiry is a simple trichotomy which is not a vector at all, but the principle that 3ns mediates between 1ns and 2ns. So, from one vantage point, the Spirit (3ns) mediates between the Father (1ns) and the Son (2ns). But I do not write this as anything but a vague conjecture. It is clearly not a temporal one. ***Further, from the involutional vectorial standpoint I have considered placing the Father at 3ns, involving the Son as 2ns, which in turn involves the Spirit (one can see the analogue to one of the "processional" arguments of the early Church). But, again, I think that it is best to see the three persons of the trinity as an eternal triad (not one, btw, that doesn't 'move' or 'evolve', etc, but where all Persons of the triad are required and, in that sense, equal). So: Father, 1ns |> Spirit, 3ns (mediating between 1ns and 2ns) Son, 2ns ML: [Add gender to this. The Virgin Mother as part of God was essential to the worship of the Middle Ages.] ***Again, as interesting as this is, it seems an element of a possible theological discussion--nor my cup of tea (nor Peirce's for that matter). Still, it may very well have some relevance in the course of this inquiry--but probably, much later. ML: I see the debate among theologians and religions as analogous to debates within semiotics, not just within Peircean semiotics. ***No doubt! ML: I apologize for the disjointed nature of this presentation. It is due, only in part, to the nature of the subject. I do think the complication of the Holy Spirit takes us to the center of the discussion. I look forward to what others see as the role of the Holy Spirit in this. To leave it out seems sterile. ***I completely agree that to leave out a discussion of the Spirit would result in a "sterile" discussion. But it seems to me wholly unlikely that that will happen. Indeed, a discussion of the Spirit will happen because you have introduced it so emphatically. But, as I believe both of us have suggested, the place of the Spirit in a Trinitarian discussion--especially one centered on categorial and semeiotic principles--is complex, difficult, subtle and, so, challenging. Best, Gary Rry, List, *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> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:26 PM Mary Libertin <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List, > > Gary R., > > You say "How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is much too > difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize here.” I totally agree, but I do > think its absence in our discussion causes some of the (my) confusion. Can > you explain how The Holy Spirit works in this discussion? > > It seems to me an/the essential aspect of God; it is what makes God God. > There is God the father, God the son. And God the Holy Spirit. > > The Nicene Creed, in particular the Filioque doctrine, is very much > related to our discussion. The Filioque means “and son”— and one > interpretation of the Nicene Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeded from > the Father and the Son, not just the Father. The Eastern and Western > churches split over this difference. And there are controversies in non > Christian religions. Why does part of the controversy not reverse the order > and state that the Father and Son proceeded from the Holy Spirit? > > In a sense the trinity is analogous to the concepts of firstness, > secondness, and thirdness of semiotics. And in “Neglected Argument for the > Reality of God” the play of musement explains the creation of ideas, > empirical testing of ideas presented as an hypothesis, and a decision based > on the result of the testing of the idea. Firstness depends on thirdness, > which is law, not the law but a law. I see the three aspects in musement > very much like the Holy Trinity. There is no beginning or ending. > > Substitute firstness with Father, or firstness with Holy Spirit, > and … basically, stop to consider all of the various permutations of 1/2/3 > with F/S/HS. . . .To accept all of the relations between them (1/2/3 with > F/S/HS) we have a process like semiosis, not a fixed hierarchy or > chronology. > > [Add gender to this. The Virgin Mother as part of God was essential to the > worship of the Middle Ages.] > > I see the debate among theologians and religions as analogous to debates > within semiotics, not just within Peircean semiotics. > > I apologize for the disjointed nature of this presentation. It is due, > only in part, to the nature of the subject. I do think the complication of > the Holy Spirit takes us to the center of the discussion. I look forward to > what others see as the role of the Holy Spirit in this. To leave it out > seems sterile. > > Best, > Mary Libertin > > On May 17, 2019, at 5:59 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote:c > > How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is much too difficult/subtle > to attempt to summarize here. > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
