Another of my posts that requires no reply. You all make this too complex. There is the All or the Infinite (Dodson) or God or any other name for an inner light in each one of us which is connected to the absolute. Anything else complexifies, or even worse, erects a route by which enlightenment must be attained with reference to things that are not absolute but claimed to be. Anything but the All or the Infinite, etc. is a relative item on a spectrum of relatives or energies. To make absolutes of such is what I call binary thinking and I think it is what Peirce may have put under the term dualism or dyadic. One reason it is difficult to arrive at unanimity is that often words or phrases become absolutes when they are patently not. Enough already. S Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK <https://t.co/ywLbuOu5NX> Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83 <https://t.co/UQ2Q6m1e7G>
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > I drafted this post last night, only to see this morning your comment that > you "would prefer not to get into theological discussions as such," so I > hope that you will bear with my responses that fall into that category. > > GR: ... 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. > > > Again, Peirce defined (and rejected) the "doctrine of an immanent deity" > as the proposition that the Universe either *is* God or *is in* God; > i.e., the Universe is either *identical to* God or *part of* God, "in > organic connection with" Him. Traditional Christian theology likewise *denies > *this, instead affirming that God is transcendent, but also* in the > Universe*--i.e., omnipresent--which is why it is possible to become > *acquainted* with God to some degree through "contemplation and study of > the physico-psychical universe" (CP 6.502; c. 1906). > > The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his > handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals > knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not > heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the > end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4) > > The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and > earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human > hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind > life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of > mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted > periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek > God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually > not far from each one of us, for "In him we live and move and have our > being." (Acts 17:24-28) > > For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it > to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine > nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, > in the things that have been made. (Romans 1:19-20) > > > Moreover, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). It is > primarily in *this* sense that "we come to know God the Father through > God the Son." > > Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” > Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know > me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show > us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father > is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, > but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the > Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works > themselves." (John 14:8-11) > > > The Son is thus the *supreme* revelation of God, although not the *only* > one. > > Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the > prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he > appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. > He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, > and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Hebrews 1:1-3) > > > That leads to my next response. > > GR: 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. > > > This does not change the fact that *our* knowledge of Peirce *today* is > entirely dependent on *indirect* experience *mediated* by Signs. > Besides, there are many trusted accounts of those who knew *God* > personally, who had direct Collateral Experience of *Him*; those who > trust those accounts call them Scriptures, and many even today would also > claim to have had, and to continue having, such experiences. I understand > Peirce's "Humble Argument" to rely on this. > > 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). > > > No apology is necessary, but this is still not quite right. The > Blackboard represents the primordial reality, what you have sometimes > called the "ur-continuity" (3ns). The Whiteboard is a melded group of > white marks *on *the Blackboard, and represents a Platonic world of pure > possibility (1ns). A discontinuous mark *on *the Whiteboard represents > our particular actual universe of existence (2ns). > > 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. > > > To clarify, are you suggesting that it is *only *through the Son, the > Word, that God the Father acts on the Universe? > > GR: 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. > > > On Peirce's account, if the Universe has *any effect at all* on God, then > it *cannot* be a Sign whose Object is God. Do you therefore deny that > the Universe is a Sign? Or do you view something other than God as its > Object? Or do you simply think that Peirce was *wrong* about every Sign > being strictly passive in relation to its Object? Rejecting the > impassibility of God leaves only those three options, as far as I can tell. > > GR: 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. > > > Understood, but in traditional Christian theology, Christ is *only > *subordinate > to the Father in His *humanity*--not in His *divinity*, as the Word. He > is "God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, > being of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made" > (Nicene Creed). All three Persons are "coeternal and coequal" (Athanasian > Creed). > > 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 5:00 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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* >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
