Helmut, List: As I understand it, pantheism is the view the universe is *itself *God, while panentheism is the view that the universe is *within *God. Peirce states the following in his *Century Dictionary* entry for "immanent" ( http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=04&page=325 ).
CSP: In modern philosophy the word is applied to the operations of a creator conceived as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a creator himself, as opposed to a *transient* or *transcendent* creating and creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God. Hence, Peirce's emphatic denials that God is immanent in the universe are explicit rejections of *both *pantheism (the world is God) *and *panentheism (the world is in God). Again, he instead identifies himself as a theist. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:55 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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: > 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, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> On 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 iPad >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:39 PM, sowa @bestweb.net < s...@bestweb.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Edwina, 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.
