Gary R., Mary, List: GR: 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.
I think that it is only natural to experiment with comparing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to Peirce's three Categories and three Universes of Experience, which are aligned with each other. The tricky part is matching up each Person with a Category/Universe, and it presumably depends (as usual) on the *purpose *of the analysis. Probably the most obvious assignment is the Son as 2ns/Actuality, by virtue of His Incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth. Is the Father then the divine 1ns/Idea, and the Holy Spirit the 3ns/Sign that unites them? I have come across suggestions in the secondary literature that this was basically Augustine's scheme, where the Holy Spirit is the *love *between the Father and the Son. Or is the Father the eternal 3ns/Mind, and the Holy Spirit the 1ns/Idea that is *involved *in the Father and the Son? From a slightly different standpoint, there is the doctrine that Christ is the sole mediator (3ns) between God (1ns) and humanity (2ns). It is an interesting topic for contemplation (Musement?), but seems unlikely to provide definitive conclusions. ML: [Add gender to this. The Virgin Mother as part of God was essential to the worship of the Middle Ages.] Although popular piety may have often veered (wrongly) in that direction, the actual teaching of Christianity was never that Mary was "part of God," but always that Mary was the *mother of God* (*theotokos*) by virtue of being the mother of Jesus, who was God. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:16 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > *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 .
