Gary R., List: Just a few brief clarifications ...
GR: I would say that there are those ... who see this Cosmic Christ as active in the Kosmos today and, indeed, always and forever, from the beginning to the end of time--and so, as some commentators have argued, even before the man, Jesus, appeared in the world. It seems to me that at least aspects of this idea find a place in certain schools of Christian theology as well. Yes, I did not mean to imply that Christ had no role in the Universe prior to the Incarnation. On the contrary, as the New Testament and traditional creeds repeatedly affirm, He is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and all three have participated in creating and sustaining the Universe from the beginning. GR: It is in the second person of the Trinity, Christ, that "we live and move and have out being" in the trinitarians view. The Apostle Paul quoted that line from Greek poetry, in context referring to "The God who made the world and everything in it." Again, I do not believe that we can limit this to only one Person. GR: Again, we're getting into traditional theology when we say that the accounts of the God come from the "many trusted accounts of those who knew God personally, who had direct Collateral Experience of Him." Understood; I am hoping that Gary F. will explain why he finds it problematic that our acquaintance with God is entirely mediated by Signs, even though that is just as true of our acquaintance with Peirce or just about anything else. GR: All such genuine relations, while three in one, yet differentiate between the characters of their 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. Yes, but differentiation does not entail subordination. GR: I would like to suggest that ... [when] speaking of the Trinity in the Christian theological sense that we use the article, 'the', and capitalize 'Trinity'. But in consideration of the sense of the word which means to extend its meaning beyond Christianity ... that we omit the article and not capitalize 'trinity'. Does that make sense? Yes, I will try to keep this in mind going forward--and also try to refrain from further theological nitpicking accordingly. :-) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:32 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > You wrote: > > JAS: 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. > > > I too 'lapsed' into theology in my second post to Mary L. last night, a > bit of theological diagramming meant to suggest that the person of the > Spirit could and ought figure more prominently in theological discussions, > might even--as some have suggested (yet I would tend to strongly agree with > you, incorrectly) be associated with Mary as the Mother of God. I should > have sent that message to Mary L. off-list. I would indeed like to keep > this as non-theological a discussion as is possible, although I'm beginning > to see how difficult, perhaps impossible to do. > > > JAS: 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). > > > I guess this particular exchange will have to be at least in part a > theological discussion as your post was written in that vein and I will > respond in kind. > > I would say that there are those, and not only Christians, who are willing > to entertain the idea of the Cosmic Christ--who see this Cosmic Christ as > active in the Kosmos today and, indeed, always and forever, from the > beginning to the end of time--and so, as some commentators have argued, > even before the man, Jesus, appeared in the world. It seems to me that at > least aspects of this idea find a place in certain schools of Christian > theology as well. > > You have already strongly suggested that you are more than hesitant to > seriously entertain the idea of the Cosmic Christ, indeed I have a strong > sense that you reject it on conservative Christian theological grounds. > But, if one does sees the Trinity as strongly suggesting that, while the > first person of the Trinity, the Creator, God the Father, is *not *immanent, > yet the second person, Christ *is*, then the notion of traditional > theology that "God is transcendent, but also* in the Universe* > --i.e., omnipresent" takes on a nuanced, perhaps very different meaning. > Similarly, this Biblical phrase you quoted will have a radically different > meaning from traditional Christian theology from the trinitarian > perspective: > > JAS: 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) > > > It is in the second person of the Trinity, Christ, that "we live and move > and have out being" in the trinitarians view. > > I won't get further into a theological discussion by reflecting here on > the several Old and New Testament passages you've cited in support of the > traditional notion that we know God through the prophets, and especially > through his Son, Jesus, who lived amongst us for a time. The idea that we > also know God through reflections on nature does have resonance for the > trinitarian option especially when we consider it in light of science, and > especially Peirce's sciences of semeiotic and metaphysics. > > Jon quoted me and then commented. > > 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. > > > JAS: 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. > > > Again, we're getting into traditional theology when we say that the > accounts of the God come from the "many trusted accounts of those who knew > *God* personally, who had direct Collateral Experience of *Him." *Not > only is this not necessarily the precise view of even those Christians who > do not subscribe to traditional theological views, but to hold strictly to > it doesn't allow for the trinitarian option to apply even more universally, > beyond traditional Christian theology; and not only to those Christians who > are not traditionalists but, beyond that, to those who would entertain the > trinitarian view as potentially helping to bridge the gap between all > religion and science. > > JAS: 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). > > Sincere thanks for clarify this (to an extent) so succinctly. Now I can > postpone rereading your Additament paper for a while :-) . In truth, this > does finally help clarify for me the relationship between Peirce's > Blackboard analogy and your addition of a Whiteboard; the Whiteboard does > deepen the Blackboard analogy (which it did for me even as I didn't get all > the particular relations implied in it exactly right). As I frequently do, > I highly recommend your paper. I might add that one will not find much > traditional theology in it. > > Jon quoted me, then commented: > > 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. > > > JAS: To clarify, are you suggesting that it is *only *through the Son, > the Word, that God the Father acts on the Universe? > > > What I am suggesting is that God the Father acts upon the Son, and that > the Son, the Word, acts within the Universe. And further, that the love > between the Father and the Son, and the love of both for the Father's > creation, is given expression in this Universe through the active love of > the Son for all creation which the Son sustains and furthers (evolves). In > this sense, God the Father stands apart from the Universe He has created, > entrusting it to His Son, the Cosmic Christ. > > Jon quoted me and then wrote: > > 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. > > > JAS: On Peirce's account, if the Universe has *any effect at all* on God, > then it *cannot* be a Sign whose Object is God. > > > In my view, the Universe has no direct effect on the Father, but has an > effect on the Son who actively works towards the growth of love in the > world. As the Son is with God in the Holy Trinity, their communication as > to the Father's God's creation is itself Real, but unknowable to us. > > > JAS: Do you therefore deny that the Universe is a Sign? > > > I do not. > > JAS: Or do you view something other than God as its Object? > > > I view God as its Object. > > JAS: Or do you simply think that Peirce was *wrong* about every Sign > being strictly passive in relation to its Object? > > > I believe Peirce was correct. > > JAS: Rejecting the impassibility of God leaves only those three options, > as far as I can tell. > > > That may be so for traditional Christian theology. But I don't agree that > these are the only three options for someone who entertains the notion of > the Cosmic Christ within a trinitarian viewpoint which is not limited to > Christianity. > > 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. > > > JAS: Understood, but in traditional Christian theology, Christ is *only > *subordinate > to the Father in His *humanity*--not in His *divinity*, as the Word. > > > As a Christian, I agree here with traditional Christian theology that > "Christ is *only *subordinate to the Father in His *humanity*--not in His > *divinity*, as the Word," but I will be suggesting that in the > trinitarian option that they are related in a genuine trichotomic relation. > All such genuine relations, while *three in one*, yet differentiate > between the characters of their 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. Or why even speak of a > trichotomy of a trinity? > > I would like to suggest that in the non-theological discussion of trinity, > when occasionally, probably necessarily, speaking of the Trinity in the > Christian theological sense that we use the article, 'the', and capitalize > 'Trinity'. But in consideration of the sense of the word which means to > extend its meaning beyond Christianity (and even toward thinking about that > possible rapprochement with science by extending it beyond its Christian > theological sense) that we omit the article and not capitalize 'trinity'. > Does that make sense? > > Should you care to respond to any of these theological points, please feel > free to have the last word. I'll be posting more soon on the trinitarian > option. > > 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 .
