Jon, List,
Is that panentheism? And, what distinguishes panentheism from pantheism, is that a fundamental distinction, is it two different concepts of "universe", one excluding, one including its origin and metaphysics, which is some question, nobody ever can answer, so trying is futile, and depends on a kind of belief not graspable? Maybe both: Fundamental, and not answerable. So, what is the benefit of discussing something we know we cannot know? We have to live with uncertainty.
Best, Helmut
10. September 2021 um 22:32 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Edwina, List:
"Personal" is not synonymous with "individual." According to Peirce, God being personal means that "we must have a direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him" (CP 6.162, EP 1:332, 1892). Conveniently, it turns out that he also prepared the entry for "personal" in the Century Dictionary (http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=05&page=859).
personal, a. and n. I. a. 1. Pertaining to a person or self-conscious being as distinct or distinguished from a thing; having personality, or the character of a person; self-conscious; belonging to men and women, or to superhuman intelligences, and not to animals or things: as, a personal God.
The entire universe, conceived as "Mind," is not "personal" in this sense. Moreover, as John 1:3 states, "All things were made by him [the Logos]; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Hence, the Logos as creator of the universe is something other than the universe, not the universe itself somehow being self-generating and self-organizing. The latter would be "pantheism, which denies or ignores the personality of God."
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:19 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
JAS, list
I wouldn't say that 'Mind' is 'impersonal'. Following Peirce's hylomorphism, my understanding is that 'Mind' emerges as organized Matter. As such, it is both 'individualized' [personal] and, of course, communal habits [impersonal].
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 3:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:John, Edwina, List:JFS: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New Testament.On the contrary, it is by no means the only definition of God in the New Testament, or even in the writings of John the Evangelist. For example, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24); "God is light" (1 John 1:5); "God is love" (1 John 4:8&16).ET: I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.The problem with interpreting "Logos" as impersonal "Mind" in the first chapter of John's Gospel is what the text goes on to say in verse 14--"And the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." This obviously entails a conception of the Logos as personal such that God became a human being.Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <edwina.tabor...@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, I agree, they are compatible.Other terms- which are used ( by Peirce and others ) - such as ‘soul’ would have to be explained .I see ‘Logos’ as Mind.The development of metaphysical explanations for experience and reality, by all peoples, which are filled with both emotional and rational narratives is a fascinating aspect of humanity.Edwina
Sent from my iPadEdwina, Jon AS, List,Those two comments are completely compatible.
ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL human populations.JAS: Peirce...:states plainly that prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses consciousness of its relation to God.But the word 'plainly' is not appropriate. That sentence is a paraphrase of a much more nuanced comment, which he would admit is fallible. Please note that Peirce's favorite gospel is the one by John the Evangelist: In the beginning (en arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and God was the Logos. That is the only definition of God in the New Testament. And it is consistent with what Heraclitus wrote.In fact, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria wrote many volumes (in Greek) to show that the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Hebrew prophets. I don't believe that it's an accident that all of them lived along the Silk Road that carried soldiers, merchants, and gurus\ to and from China, India, Persia, Babylon, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.Also note that Alexandria was in Egypt, and Philo used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew). It's very likely that John was influenced by Philo as well as the Greek philosophers..John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
