Jon, List, Jon, I tend to be in more agreement than disagreement with what you've written here although, as is often the case, I have some questions I'd like to pose to you. However, our general approach would seem to be somewhat different as I have a sense that at least some of our religious views and practices are.
Unfortunately, I have finally run out of time as I am leaving for Italy early tomorrow and today have spent perhaps an exorbitant amount of time in my response to Gene and Mary. In fact, I still have some packing to do before I fly out tomorrow. But I will try to respond to your stimulating post if I can get good Internet access abroad and can function happily (enough) on the tablet we're taking with us. But, hopefully, more sooner than later. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:40 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: However, you also quoted Peirce to the effect that God is creating > this Universe continuously, that the world was not created on some > particularly busy day several thousands of years ago, as Genesis (and, > mutatis mutandis, the Whiteboard metaphor) would have it, but is happening > now and will be happening until the World's end. > > > I believe that remark by Peirce was mainly intended to *broaden *the > notion of "creation" *beyond *its usual reference to a one-time event in > the distant past, whether understood as having happened "during a certain > busy week, in the year 4004 B.C." (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903), or billions > of years ago as the singularity that is popularly known as "the Big Bang." > After all, in the same passage he equated "the creation of the universe" > with "this very development of Reason," which "consists, you will observe, > in embodiment, that is, in manifestation" such that it "is going on today > and never will be done" (*ibid*). In other words, he was emphasizing the > *continuity > *of creation as a *process*. > > With that in mind, I see no incompatibility with the blackboard > illustration--which, it is important to note, Peirce *did not* > characterize as a *metaphor*. On the contrary, he explicitly referred to > "the clean blackboard" as "a sort of diagram," and stated that "the clue to > which I trust to guide us through the maze ... consists in making our > thought diagrammatic and mathematical, by treating generality from the > point of view of geometrical continuity, and by experimenting upon the > diagram" (CP 6.203-204; 1898). I am pointing this out because of how he > elsewhere distinguished between the different kinds of *hypoicons*. > > CSP: Hypoicons may roughly [be] divided according to the mode of > Firstness which they partake. Those which partake the simple qualities, or > First Firstnesses, are *images*; those which represent the relations, > mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one thing by analogous > relations in their own parts, are *diagrams*; those which represent the > representative character of a representamen by representing a parallelism > in something else, are *metaphors*. (EP 2:274; 1903) > > > What makes a Sign a diagram is that it embodies the *relations *among the > *parts > *of its Object. Peirce was thus primarily calling attention to the *relations > *among the "ur-continuity" (3ns), various "Platonic worlds" (1ns), and > our "actual universe of existence" (2ns) by representing them respectively > as a clean blackboard, melded groups of white marks on it (my > "whiteboards"), and a discontinuous mark on one of those. I have taken the > additional step of observing that marks do not simply *appear *on > blackboards as somehow self-generating--instead, *someone has to draw > them*; and based on that *relation*, I understand that person to > represent God. As such, there is nothing stopping Him from *continuing *to > draw *additional *white marks on the blackboard (new possibilities) and > *additional > *discontinuous marks on the whiteboard (new existents). > > GR: It seems to me that in consideration of the ur-Continuity of the > Blackboard from which God selected those Platonic characters ('Platonic' is > Peirce's word in this context) which would be inscribed on 'our' > Whiteboard, that that Person is, if I understand you correctly, the > semeiotic Object of this Universe, the Creator of the vast evolving Symbol > which is *this* Cosmos, our Universe. > > > Indeed, what I just outlined corresponds to Peirce's description of "a > *perfect > *sign" as "perpetually being acted upon by its object, from which it is > perpetually receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh > energy, and also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain > dormant"; and also never ceasing "to undergo changes of the kind we rather > drolly call spontaneous, that is, they happen *sua sponte* but not by *its > *will" (EP 2:545n25; 1906). If these changes do not occur by a perfect > Sign's *own *will--whatever that might mean--then *whose *will brings > them about? In my view, spontaneity in this sense is not *randomness*, > but (divine) *freedom*. "Thus, when I speak of chance, I only employ a > mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom > or spontaneity" (CP 6.201; 1898). > > GR: But, in consideration of the continuous creation occurring *now*, it > seems to me that if God the Father is not immanent in this Universe then > that continuous creation must be the ongoing work of *He who is God with > the Father *but who is not the Father, that is, Christ. > > > Again, note the *relations *that Peirce's diagram embodies. Surely we > can agree that the person who draws the chalk marks is *not *immanent in > the blackboard, let alone in the marks themselves; he is *entirely > outside *them, yet still able to *act upon *them. Likewise, I see no > reason why it would be necessary for God to be immanent in the Universe in > order to be its continuous Creator. I suppose that we could speculate on > whether and where Christ *might *fit into this picture. Is He the man > drawing the marks on behalf of the Father? The hand that holds the chalk? > The piece of chalk itself? The blackboard as the *Logos *(John 1) in > Whom "all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17)? Obviously none of these > are fully compatible with the *traditional *doctrine of the Trinity--for > one thing, where is the Holy Spirit?--but the last one might loosely fit > the concept of "the Cosmic Christ." > > GR: Of course, Peirce was generally opposed to theology (although not to > religious metaphysics, the distinction not yet clear to me); and, indeed, > religious experience doesn't require theology. > > > It seems more accurate to say that Peirce was generally opposed to > *theologians*, because he did not consider them to be practicing a > genuine *science*. Instead, he viewed them as relying primarily on the > methods of tenacity and authority to enforce allegedly infallible dogmas, > as reflected in his assertion that "the principal business of theologians > is to make men feel the enormity of the slightest departure from the > metaphysics they assume to be connected with the standard faith" (CP 6.3; > 1898). He also had misgivings about religious *institutions*, since "the > Church requires subscription to a platform--a Creed. And how has that > platform been made? With strict party regularity, no doubt" (CP 6.450; c. > 1895). Of course, I do not share his negative opinions about such things. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:55 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, List, >> >> In an earlier message in this thread I suggested that in order to avoid >> confusion, when speaking of *trinity *without explicit religious >> underpinnings that we type the 't' lowercase, but that we capitalize it >> when referring to *the Trinity* of theology. In my message below, >> Trinity is almost always capitalized since it means to relate to Peirce's >> religious metaphysics in conjunction with his cosmological views, not >> entirely separate as I see it. In any case, those who are adverse to >> theology might consider skipping reading this post. >> >> I'm going to be traveling abroad with perhaps limited Internet access >> beginning this weekend through the 12th of June, but before I left, I did >> want to ask a question that came to mind again regarding Peirce's religious >> metaphysics (his cosmological theology, if I may so phrase it). I hinted at >> it earlier, but now would like to deepen the question. >> >> It seems to me that, on the one hand, Peirce suggested, and you have >> argued in your Signs paper, Jon (as suggested by the Blackboard metaphor in >> the last of the 1898 lectures) that 'before' this Universe came into being, >> 'before' there was anything Existent (so 'before' Time, 'before' the >> so-called Big Bang), that God, from *all* the Platonic possibilities, >> that is, from all imaginable and unimaginable essential Platonic forms >> which might possibly be involved in the creation of *some* Universe (the >> Blackboard metaphor, if I finally have it right), that on a kind of subset >> of that Blackboard of ur-continuity--so upon a kind of Whiteboard--He >> scribed those potential qualities and characters which *would* factor in >> the creation of this Universe. (Btw, as I understand Peirce, this is not >> the only possible universe the Scriber might create, and Peirce hints at a >> kind of multiverse theory, one which seems to me quite different from most >> modern versions of such theories.) >> >> However, you also quoted Peirce to the effect that God is >> creating this Universe continuously, that the world was *not* created on >> some particularly busy day several thousands of years ago, as Genesis (and, >> mutatis mutandis, the Whiteboard metaphor) would have it, but is happening >> now and will be happening until the World's end. >> >> It seems to me that in consideration of the ur-Continuity of the >> Blackboard from which God selected those Platonic characters ('Platonic' is >> Peirce's word in this context) which would be inscribed on 'our' >> Whiteboard, that that Person is, if I understand you correctly, the >> semeiotic Object of this Universe, the Creator of the vast evolving Symbol >> which is *this* Cosmos, our Universe. >> >> But, in consideration of the continuous creation occurring *now*, it >> seems to me that if God the Father is not immanent in this Universe then >> that continuous creation must be the ongoing work of *He who is God with >> the Father *but who is not the Father, that is, Christ. And this is one >> of the reasons that I introduced this thread on trinity (there are, of >> course, others). >> >> [Note: I have already pointed to some thinkers having a trinitarian view >> of the cosmos which is not specifically Christian or even, for that matter, >> necessarily religious (although, personally, I don't see how a trinitarian >> view of the cosmos wouldn't lead to a Trinitarian and, so, religious one, >> while the religion need not be Christianity according to some advocates of >> trinitarian thinking).] >> >> For now this problematic of *both* an *ur-creation* leading to the >> putative 'Big Bang' *and* an ongoing *continuous creation* is resolved >> in my mind in imagining that while the First Person of the Trinity (God the >> Father) is not immanent in the Universe, is *not* Himself actively and >> continuously creating it, that the Second Person *is* (whom some, >> notably Matthew Fox and Richard Rohr, have referred to as the Cosmic >> Christ), and that this is the consequence of the communication between the >> First and Second Persons via the Third, viz., the Holy Spirit. I understand >> this to be expression of the (evolutionary) Love of all three Persons of >> the Trinity for God's creation and for humankind, Man having been made in >> His image. >> >> It seems to me that Peirce analyses this trichotomically (i.e., >> tri-categorially) *and* semiotically. However, I'm now suggesting that >> his pure categorial analysis speaks to the ur-creation (where there are 'as >> yet' no signs as such) while the semeiotic analysis concerns itself >> specifically with the on-going creation. In this regard, it also comes to >> mind, perhaps not completely irrelevantly, that in Peirce's Classification >> of Sciences that Phenomenology (yielding the three Universal Categories) >> precedes Logic as Semeiotic, and that Pure Mathematics precedes them both. >> >> Now you've already noted that this way of thinking--that is, imagining >> God, as the Second Person of the Trinity, that is Christ, immanent in and >> continuing God, as the First Person, the Father's creation, and in >> communion with Him through the Holy Spirit--is something you really haven't >> (or, really, even want to) entertain given your conservative Christian >> views. But I do not see how God can be both completely 'apart' from His >> Creation and yet also 'continuously creating' it. So, again, for me seeing >> God as Three-in-One and distinguishing the 'roles' (so to speak) of the >> three Persons provides something of an answer to the question I've posed. >> >> I was introduced to the notion of the Cosmic Christ decades ago while >> reading Meister Eckhart's writings and sermons which led me to Fox's work, >> especially, *The Coming of the Cosmic Christ*. I 'rediscovered' the >> concept and had it reinforced in the past few years through Rohr's ongoing >> work. I hope it's clear that I see it as an uniquely powerful idea, >> especially within the context of Peirce cosmological musings. Peirce, as I >> understand him, was not a conservative Christian. It seems to me, then, >> that his positing Three Universal Categories and Three Universes of >> Experience might have made the idea of God the Creator of this Universe >> offering to it His Son, the Cosmic Christ at work today, plausible to him. >> It also helps reconcile, at least for me, his proto-cosmic thinking in the >> 1898 Cambridge House lectures with the several semeiotic analyses you've >> been considering and from which you've been extensively quoting, and helps >> answer the question of how God can be both apart from His creation and yet >> continually creating it. >> >> Of course, Peirce was generally opposed to theology (although not to >> religious metaphysics, the distinction not yet clear to me); and, indeed, >> religious experience doesn't require theology. >> >> As I noted in an early post in this thread, despite what I just wrote as >> a Christian, I do not myself see the trinity idea as limited to Christian >> theology and, in fact, imagine that it might prove valuable in helping >> bridge the divide between religion and science, Peirce's desideratum. I >> hope to take up that more general view of trinity in future posts. >> >> For now I'd be interested in what thoughts you might have on this view of >> the Trinity. >> >> 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 .
