Helmut, list
This discussion here, is about religion in populations. And not
about cosmology or the emergence of Mind/Matter.
My view is that animism is 'first', so to speak, in that it emerges
in SMALL populations, ie, hunting and gathering bands. The focus is
on multiple spirits -not gods which have authority - but life-force
spirits closely in contact with human beings.
Polytheism is next in the history of man - and emerges in larger
populations, which were usually, economically, agricultural and thus,
politically multi-leveled and hierarchical. The religions that
developed would follow similar patterns, with multiple gods, and a
'Big Man' chief god but with many, many 'local gods' in the
god-family, so to speak.. Many of these multiple gods were local
deities, in charge of local agendas and economic or other social
functions.
Monotheism is a very late development - and moves into an
authoritative function over a much, much larger population, where the
people are 'kept in line' so to speak, by a common authoritative god
who is all-powerful, [like an emperor, King]...and the people are
discouraged from having local, 'small-town' gods'.
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 4:12 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List, Yes, the Greek and Roman polytheism is marvellous. I
wonder where it had derived from. I have looked at Wikipedia
"Polytheism", the experts quibble very muchly what was first and what
came then. My suspection is, that first was animism, with some
singular life force such as Manitou -personal or impersonal,
monotheism or not theism, depends on how you define "person", I would
say-, then came polytheism, to give the folks something to identify
with and pray to: A personal counselor who understands their special
needs, and can be adressed without too much abstraction needed. Then
came Henotheism, one God from the pantheon was elected for superior,
like Allah, who originally was the moongod, or Jahwe, maleified from
"Eva" in the patriarchalic revolution, or Echnaton´s Aton, whose
original job was to be the sun and shine. Then this superior God was
given traits like having been the first, having created everything,
being the master of his saints-followers. Then these saints again
became something like Gods again, and the second wave of polytheism
emerged. And so on. But I wonder, if it was so, how do the Greek and
Roman (and Celtic and German) Gods fit in this evolution? Maybe the
Europeans, like later and today too, were so arrogant that they
wanted to keep the superior office free from spirituality, so a jarl,
chief, or cesar could obtain it? Best, Helmut 10. September
2021 um 21:16 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, list
I stand by my point that the monotheistic religions, which focus
only on ONE god, - "and no other gods" - emerged only with the
development of settled and larger populations; ie, in the last few
thousand years [with the development of agriculture].. And this
singular god also became anthropomorphic, i.e., human-like'.
Animism has no 'gods' as such but has spirits. Polytheism - has
multiple gods. I'm sure you've heard of the Greek and Roman hordes of
them!! Marvellous creations of the imagination!
The term 'Manitou' refers to a basic life force that functions in
all of life. This is not similar, I think, to the monotheistic God.
The Gitche Manitou is a supreme life force - and is animistic rather
than a monotheistic god.
I don't think that the Catholic use of 'saints' is comparable to
polytheism! Heh - that would be something to talk about!
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 2:46 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, JAS, List, I have read, that "religion" either means
"reading again", or, more likely, "reconnection". In the more likely
latter case, it should be a reconnection with a higher authority (or
more of them), not merely a form of behavior. Ok, the "re" in
"reconnection" suggests alienation, and maybe alienation is a trait
of civilization, i.e. higher populations. I doubt, that the notion
of a singular God is found only since a few thousand years, at least
with God as a pantheistic concept. I think so, because today
animistic religions have this singular concept: Manitou (Algonkin),
Paratman (Brahman religion, Sanskrit), and animism is likely to be be
very old. Polytheism and carved or painted idols don´t exclude
monotheism, I think. Hinduism, for examle, is a religion whose
skilled priests say that it is monotheistic, though there are many
subgods or avatars. I think it is also justified to say, that in
catholicism there is a development towards polytheism, at least there
are many saints you can pray to. Is it so, that Manitou and Paratman
are, as pantheistic definitions, in accord with Peirce, and the
christian God and the God of Echnaton are not? Best, Helmut 10.
September 2021 um 20:11 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
JAS, list
The reason that I do not agree with your request: "Again, why not
simply admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God
as traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those
attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God?"
..is because I read OTHER passages from Peirce that argue against
this 'traditional definition'. I have provided some of them with
specific sites and dates.
That includes his cosmology - which, both early and late, denies a
pre-Big Bang reality [of God]. ie, it denies that the universe is
created by something OTHER than itself, since, before the Big Bang -
there was 'nility'.
I'd say that Jon Awbrey's suggestion of 'deism' [vs 'theism' which
as I understand it, is the traditional definition] might be a better
fit for Peirce.
But I continue to stand by Peirce's references to god as 'Mind,
Nature, Reason'. After all - he wrote about these analogies!
And again, I choose to separate the metaphysical analysis from the
societal and psychological. That is, the belief in 'Mind' [God] as
the infrastructure for the development of Matter --- is NOT the basis
for religion. Religion is both a psychological, ie, individual and
emotional, and a communal system of belief and behaviour. It acts as
a cohesive and morality-inducing system within a population; it
explains the origin and function of the population; it enables
individual emotional traumas to be acknowledged and borne. It exists
without any 'higher authority'; ie, you will find religion and all
these aspects of belief and behaviour among populations with no
notion of a singular God or even multiple gods.
But the concept of a singular god - found only in very large
populations and therefore, only in the last few thousand years - is,
I feel, a metaphysical analysis that should not be merged with the
psychological and societal format of religion. Therefore - I choose
to focus on Peirce's explanation of a 'god' force within his outlines
of Mind-as-Matter, his outlines of the universal operation of Mind,
his outlines of the emergence of Mind as Habit - and so on. I don't
focus on his outline of religion, which I feel, is quite different.
What seems to be developing in this discussion - is that there are
two Peircean outlines for god/religion...and I don't think that there
is a 'final opinion' on them.
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 12:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Edwina, List: ET: To write: God is "Really creator of all
three Universes of Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is
any different from the term of 'Mind'. It is completely
different if by "Mind" (or "Reason" or "Nature") one is referring
only to our existing universe and claiming that it is somehow
self-organized, rather than created by something (or someone) other
than itself. The latter is Peirce's explicitly stated belief.
ET: As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the
universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline
and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.
Again, it is Peirce's description, and he addresses the charge of
anthropomorphism directly. CSP: But as to its being unscientific
because anthropomorphic, that is an objection of a very shallow kind,
that arises from prejudices based upon much too narrow
considerations. "Anthropomorphic" is what pretty much all conceptions
are at bottom; otherwise other roots for the words in which to express
them than the old Aryan roots would have to be found. And in regard to
any preference for one kind of theory over another, it is well to
remember that every single truth of science is due to the affinity of
the human soul to the soul of the universe, imperfect as that affinity
no doubt is. To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to
man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that it is
anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it
in the eyes of an Exact Logician. ... I have after long years of the
severest examination become fully satisfied that, other things being
equal, an anthropomorphic conception, whether it makes the best
nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or not, is far more
likely to be approximately true than one that is not anthropomorphic.
Suppose, for example, it is a question between accepting Telepathy or
Spiritualism. The former I dare say is the preferable working
hypothesis because it can be more readily subjected to experimental
investigation. But as long as there is no reason for believing it
except phenomena that Spiritualism is equally competent to explain, I
think Spiritualism is much the more likely to be approximately true,
as being the more anthropomorphic and natural idea; and in like
manner, as between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent Absolute,
recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a question of
which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47-47n, EP
2:152, 1903) In fact, he straightforwardly identifies his
"old-fashioned" notion of God as that of an anthropomorphist and a
theist. CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the
main. And in particular if it implies theism, I am an
anthropomorphist. But the God of my theism is not finite. That won't
do at all. For to begin with, existence is reaction, and therefore no
existent can be clear supreme. On the contrary, a finite being,
without much doubt, and at any rate by presumption, is one of a
genus; so that it would, to my mind, involve polytheism. In the next
place, anthropomorphism for me implies above all that the true Ideal
is a living power, which is a variation of the ontological proof due,
I believe, to Moncure Conway's predecessor, William Johnson ( not
James) Fox. That is, the esthetic ideal, that which we all love and
adore, the altogether admirable, has, as ideal, necessarily a mode
of being to be called living. Because our ideas of the infinite are
necessarily extremely vague and become contradictory the moment we
attempt to make them precise. But still they are not utterly
unmeaning, though they can only be interpreted in our religious
adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct. This I think is
good sound solid strong pragmatism. Now the Ideal is not a finite
existent. Moreover, the human mind and the human heart have a
filiation to God. That to me is the most comfortable doctrine. At
least I find it most wonderfully so every day in contemplating all my
misdeeds and shortcomings. (CP 8.262, 1905) From this passage, we
can add living to the list of adjectives that Peirce uses in his
verbal definitions of God, which achieve the second grade of
clearness--thus going beyond the first grade of clearness, which is
mere familiarity with the word and how to use it properly. Moreover,
he affirms here that "our religious adoration and the consequent
effects upon conduct" are valid pragmatistic interpretations of the
concept of God, which achieve the third grade of clearness. CSP:
The concept which is a logical interpretant is only imperfectly so. It
somewhat partakes of the nature of a verbal definition, and is as
inferior to the habit, and much in the same way, as a verbal
definition is inferior to the real definition. The deliberately
formed, self-analyzing habit,--self-analyzing because formed by the
aid of analysis of the exercises that nourished it,--is the living
definition, the veritable and final logical interpretant. (CP 5.491,
EP 2:418, 1907) The final logical interpretant of the concept of
God--its real and living definition--is the deliberately formed,
self-analyzing habit of "religious adoration and the consequent
effects upon conduct." Accordingly, Peirce's Neglected Argument for
the reality of God "present[s] its conclusion, not as a proposition
of metaphysical theology, but in a form directly applicable to the
conduct of life, and full of nutrition for man's highest growth" (CP
6.457, EP 2:435, 1908). In other words ... CSP: [A]ny normal
man who considers the three Universes in the light of the hypothesis
of God's Reality, and pursues that line of reflection in scientific
singleness of heart, will come to be stirred to the depths of his
nature by the beauty of the idea and by its august practicality, even
to the point of earnestly loving and adoring his strictly hypothetical
God, and to that of desiring above all things to shape the whole
conduct of life and all the springs of action into conformity with
that hypothesis. Now to be deliberately and thoroughly prepared to
shape one's conduct into conformity with a proposition is neither
more nor less than the state of mind called Believing that
proposition, however long the conscious classification of it under
that head be postponed. (CP 6.467, EP 2:440, 1908) This is the
sense in which, as Phyllis put it, "His [Peirce's] take on God was
based on the conduct of human behavior." ET: I continue to think
that Peirce's analogy of Mind, Reason, Nature is the most logical and
scientific definition of the term of 'god'. According to Peirce,
even just characterizing God as "Mind" is already anthropomorphic.
CSP: To the same general tendency belongs an opinion, now very
common, that it is unscientific to inquire whether there be a God;
the only rational question being what sort of God there is. With this
is naturally associated the further opinion that instead of its being
shallow philosophy to suppose an "anthropomorphic" God, if by
"anthropomorphic" be meant mental, it is far more consonant with the
method of science to formulate the problem by asking what sort of a
mind God is; and if we cannot in some measure understand God's mind,
all science, it is said with some color of justice, must be a
delusion and a snare. (CP 8.168, 1902) Again, why not simply
admit disagreement with his explicitly stated belief that God as
traditionally defined is real, i.e., that God possesses all those
attributes regardless of what anyone thinks about God? Regards,
Jon S. On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:54 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
To write: God is "Really creator of all three Universes of
Experience" is not a definition of 'God' that is any different from
the term of 'Mind'.
As for " the real, personal, and transcendent creator of the
universe" - that description, to me, is an anthropomorphic outline
and provides no analysis and moves, I feel, into the psychological.
I continue to think that Peirce's analogy of Mind, Reason, Nature is
the most logical and scientific definition of the term of 'god'. .
[2.24 1902] [8.212 1905]; [6.490 1908] [6.502 1908]
And his Cosmology [A Guess at the Riddle 1890]. 'The Origin of the
Universe 6.214-, 1898 AND the NA 6.490 1908]. does not refer to an
agential creator, but in all cases to an original nility and
subsequent 'taking of habits'. .[See also that this adaptive
evolution is continuous 6.505 ]
He does discuss religion, as, for example, in 6.395-- 1878 - but as
I've suggested, religion and the idea of a god are not the same
[Peirce makes this same point in this section and see 6.504 ]. I
think that religious references to god - and Peirce does indeed
include these, are psychological aspects of human behaviour:
emotional.
I think that's 'where it's at', so to speak, in this
discussion/debate.
Edwina
On Fri 10/09/21 10:13 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Edwina, List: ET: And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological
outlines don't refer to god. And I repeat - "A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God" is one of Peirce's cosmological
outlines, perhaps the last that he wrote (1908), and obviously does
refer to God in its very title. Its opening affirmation that God is
"Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" is clearly a
cosmological assertion. ET: Instead, his outlines show us that
the universe is self-organized as a process of Mind-Matter in
hylomorphic correlation. His earlier outlines, such as "A Guess
at the Riddle" (1887-8), could be interpreted that way; but only by
ignoring his later outlines, including but not limited to "A
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." Why not simply admit
disagreement with Peirce's explicitly stated belief that God as
traditionally defined is the real, personal, and transcendent creator
of the universe? Why keep insisting that he somehow meant something
different from what his own words plainly state? Regards, Jon S.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:30 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
1] I don't agree with you that Peirce rejects the concept that
prayer is a psychological action. Your statement that it is a
'universal human instinct' - is psychological.
2] Our species' natural instinct' is the capacity to reason, to
develop 'logical outlines/patterns/diagrams' of the world. This
capacity is found in all of life - from protoplasm to bees to man.
..which is why it is "in accordance with natures".
With regard to mankind - This capacity to reason is NOT a
knowledge-base but the capacity-to-develop-a knowledge base. Insects
don't have this capacity; they have the capacity to 'reason' and
interact but their knowledge base is heavily 'fixed' and innate. They
can't develop a new method of interacting with the world. Man's
knowledge base is not innate but is developed by the population over
time and stored in our social memories. The advantage of this method
of developing knowledge, of course, is its flexibility. Mankind can
change his knowledge and move from gathering seeds to planting fruit
trees.
3] And I repeat - Peirce's cosmological outlines don't refer to god.
Instead, his outlines show us that the universe is self-organized as a
process of Mind-Matter in hylomorphic correlation.
I think, as I've said before, that it is important to separate the
analysis of Mind/God [whatever the term one uses to examine the
ordering processes of our universe] from the analysis of Religion
within human populations. They are, in my view, not the same and to
merge the two can have disastrous societal and political results.
Edwina
On Thu 09/09/21 11:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Edwina, List: ET: Prayer is, in my view, a psychological
form of behaviour - among ALL human populations. Okay, but
clearly this is not Peirce's view. Again, he states plainly that
prayer is a universal human instinct by which the soul expresses
consciousness of its relation to God. ET: That is - since our
knowledge base is not innate but learned, then, homo sapiens must
function as a collective. On the contrary, according to Peirce,
some of our "knowledge base" is instinctive rather than learned.
After all, "unless man have a natural bent in accordance with
nature's, he has no chance of understanding nature, at all" (CP
6.477, EP 2:444, 1908) ET: As a side note, to my awareness,
Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to 'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas'
and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc]. Only if one
blatantly begs the question by insisting that "A Neglected Argument
for the Reality of God" is somehow not an exposition of Peirce's
cosmology. I obviously think that it is, given that I wrote a paper
entitled "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the
Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187 [1]).
Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:26 PM Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
List
Prayer is, in my view, a psychological form of behaviour - among ALL
human populations.
It goes along with the awareness, in our human species, of our
necessary functioning as a collective.
That is - since our knowledge base is not innate but learned, then,
homo sapiens must function as a collective. The collective is the
site of both stored and new knowledge.
I think that this fact - the fragility of knowledge - means that
human beings are aware that the world functions in a far more complex
manner than their knowledge base is aware of. So - this awareness of
the complexity and magnitude of the universe leads to the development
of communal narratives about birth, death, cosmology. And the fact
that our species lives as a collective brings in awareness of the
rules required for communal living; ie, morality - which is made
authoritative by appeals to stronger and 'higher' powers [gods].
There isn't a population in the world, as far as I know, that has
not developed an awareness and narrative of superior authorities than
the human being [whether it be spirits, multiple gods, singular god,
etc]. But my view is that this is due to the unique nature of the
human species' socially generated knowledge base and communal living
requirements.
As a side note, to my awareness, Peirce's cosmology doesn't refer to
'god', [ie, compare with Aquinas' and Aristotle's unmoved Mover, First
Cause, etc].
Edwina
On Thu 09/09/21 6:29 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent: Gary R., Phyllis, List: Peirce did have this to say about
prayer. CSP: We, one and all of us, have an instinct to pray;
and this fact constitutes an invitation from God to pray. And in fact
there is found to be not only soulagement in prayer, but great
spiritual good and moral strength. I do not see why prayer may not be
efficacious, or if not the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which
the prayer is nothing more than the expression, namely the soul's
consciousness of its relation to God, which is nothing more than
precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God; so that, in
that sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of the Lord. (CP
6.516, c. 1906) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe,
Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran
Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM
Gary Richmond wrote: Phyllis, List, PC: As I recall, Peirce
said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell. GR: I
think this is basically correct, although he does speak of a simple,
natural belief open to the humblest man or woman; he hasn't much good
to say about most theologians, however, as it is they who confuse
simple faith with, for example, notions of heaven and hell, etc.
PC: His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior. The
conduct of a great man's behavior is offered by Peirce as a rough
analogy to God. But the last of the 1898 Lectures, for example there
are others) can be seen to position his idea of God within a vast
cosmological context. Best, Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
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 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 [4] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
