Gary R, List I think this excellent outline ’says it all’ - ; clearly and succinctly. I think that when one is examining Peirce, that you have to look at ALL his work [that is accessible!] - and not just selected parts of it. Peirce’s lifelong exploration of the world has to be taken into consideration - and Gary R’s outline of the universe as a ‘cosmic order of intelligence that permeates all reality’; creating, evolving, developing ‘matter as effete mind’…And the concept of the continuous operation of semiosis, and the triadic signs….etc
I agree with it all - and feel that this outline does express the basic concepts of there many years of Peirce’s work. The last paragraph - is excellent. Edwina > On Sep 18, 2024, at 7:50 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > I should preface these comments by noting that I consider panentheism to be > at present an underdeveloped concept. So, for example, my understanding of it > is none of the three versions which Jon outlined (including Soteriological > panentheism) which he considers my 'version' to be. I would hope that there > are some here who might be interested in further developing a 21st century > version of panentheism, and I offer these thoughts as a kind of hope and > stimulus to the possibility of its further development. > > Panentheism, as I see it, provides a framework for reconciling diverse > perspectives on God, including those of theists, atheists, and agnostics. By > viewing God through the lens of the conception of universal Mind (whatever > Peirce's personal views may have been as expressed in, for example, the > 'Neglected Argument') allows for a more flexible and inclusive understanding > of divinity -- one that transcends traditional theistic models while > remaining open to scientific inquiry. > If one accepts the notion of God as universal Mind -- and it's clear that > even some in this forum will not -- a path is opened to reinterpret the > divine in ways that both theists and atheists could find plausible. Instead > of a personal, anthropomorphic God, this panentheistic interpretation > represents a cosmic order of intelligence that permeates all reality. The > concept of a universal Mind holds that God is not separate from the universe > but through the action of the three categories in communion, as it were, > creating 'then' structuring matter and the characters and 'feelings' involved > in matter at various levels of evolution -- thus both immanent within it and > transcending it: Yes, Ens Necessarium initiating the creation of a cosmos, in > this case, our universe. > > For theists, Peirce's universal mind can still be considered "God," but not > God as confined to a remote, external being; rather, God as creating the > rational structure of the cosmos itself, guiding its unfolding and > development. For atheists, universal Mind does not demand belief in a > supernatural deity but instead allows one to view reality as being structured > by logical, meaningful processes. This could be seen as a metaphor for the > emergent properties of the universe, resonating with naturalistic and > scientific perspectives. Thus, panentheism represents a framework for > reconciling theism and atheism. > > The idea that God created the cosmos but is separate from it is, as we well > know, often a source of tension between religion and science. Classical > theism (as Jon has properly defined it) in which God is a distant creator, > tends to make a dualistic separation between the spiritual and the physical > worlds. This makes it difficult for many to integrate scientific > understandings of the universe into religious worldviews. I find myself more > and more in that camp. > > Panentheism, particularly as informed by certain aspects of Peirce’s > philosophy which are not centered on his personal theistic beliefs, offers an > alternative: to see God as the divine Reality that is dynamically interwoven > with all of existence. Since God is seen as Ens Necessarium and involved > inthe very fabric of the universe, scientific discoveries become revelations > of the divine order, rather than threats to it. > > The reality of the cosmos being “perfused with signs" can be seen as > inherently semiotic, and so the evolution of the universe, including life and > consciousness, can be understood as a process of unfolding meaning, in line > with a deep cosmic principle of evolution. Peirce’s semiotic theory offers a > framework for both theists and atheists to understand the workings of > reality. > > Further, the categories can help explain the universe in a way that resonates > with both religious and secular views. 3ns, as involving mediation, > continuity, and the laws that govern relationships between things is where > the idea of a universal mind can come into play as the Mind (intelligence) > which through 2ns and 1ns creates, connects, and ultimately makes scientific, > spiritual, and emotional sense of the universe. A trichotomic framework > implies that the universe is fundamentally intelligible and meaningful, not > random or chaotic. > > From a panentheistic perspective this aligns with the idea that God’s > presence is immanent in the unfolding of cosmic order through the concerted > effort of all three categories created by Mind, which is as I've discussed it > here is the the ur-continuum (ur-3ns 'already' involving 2ns and 1ns) which > will in time create a universe. For atheists or naturalists, this can be > understood as an emergent process within the universe, without requiring > supernatural intervention, while acknowledging the Mind which sets the > evolution of a universe -- our Universe -- into action. Such a perspective > can (hopefully) provide a ground for a rapprochement between religion and > science, and between theists and atheists, because it reframes the discussion > in terms of meaning, logic, and evolution, rather than metaphysical debates > about the reality of a personal deity (and all the other theological baggage > which, in my opinion, the 21st century should be working to divest itself of). > > But don't get me wrong. At least for now, for theists, the universal mind is > still “God,” but this God is seen as the animating force of reason and > evolution, integrated into the workings of the cosmos itself. For atheists > the self-same idea can be understood in non-theistic terms as a kind of > metaphor for the deep, rational structures of the universe, and whether this > is interpreted as natural law, complexity, or emergence. And, of course, for > panentheists -- like me --this perspective naturally fits within a belief > that God is both transcendent of the universe (Ens Necessarium, the First > Person of the Trinity, the ur-continuity of all the categories as one -- > with the infinite potential that that suggests) and immanent within the > cosmos (as all three created categories work together), thus fostering a > worldview in which science reveals the nature of God, and a panentheology > explores the meaning and purpose behind that revelation. > > In a word, a panentheistic vision, particularly with its emphasis on the > cosmos as an integral sign (universe) which is in turn an evolving complexus > of signs, offers an argument for both theists and atheists to find common > ground. It allows for a view of reality that is suffused with meaning, > structured by logic, and compatible with scientific inquiry, while also > retaining space for religious awe and wonder. This approach can serve as a > bridge, fostering dialogue and understanding across traditionally opposing > worldviews. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 1:42 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jon, List, >> >> The former discussion, I want to leave to theologists, and have therefore >> renamed the thread with "A logical problem", is rather about logic and >> mathematic, than about God: >> >> -- Position 1 (false): Because God doesn´t have a body, so you cannot talk >> about containment at all. So you can say neither, that the universe is >> contained within God, nor that it is not contained within God. So both is >> true, it is not contained and not not contained. >> This position breaks the law of the excluded middle, so it must be false. >> >> -- Position 2, panentheism: The only option left, to save the excluded >> middle, is to widen the concept of "containment" from spatial to functional >> composition. This would mean for panentheism, that the universe´s function >> is contained within God´s function, but God´s function is not contained in >> the universe´s function, that would be pantheism. >> >> -- Position 3, theism: The universe´s function is not contained in God´s >> function, although God is omnipresent. Omnipresence is, that there is no >> place and no particle in the universe, that is not always in a functional >> connection with God. But: Function is not a symmetrical relation. "x=f(y)" >> means, that for every point on the x-axis there is not more than one point >> on the y-axis. But for a point on the y-axis, there may be more than one >> point on the x-axis. So, if x and y are points in the universe, and form the >> said function, for God, this x can apply to more than one point on y in His >> world, thus this function in the universe isn´t a function for Him. So this >> function in the universe is not a part of God´s function. >> >> Besides not being a theologist, I neither am a mathematician, but I guess, >> that this nonsymmetry of "function" is the basis for the difference between >> theism and panentheism. Jon, is there the discipline "mathematical >> theology"? If not, I think, there should be! >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> >> >> 18. September 2024 um 18:30 Uhr >> Von: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Jon, List, >> >> God is omnipresent, but not immanent, is pure mind, like the universe is, as >> matter is mind too, although effete, the universe is not contained within >> God, though my argument said, that it is not not-contained, because God >> doesn´t have a limited body... I don´t understand these differences now, I >> guess I better leave the topic to studied theolgists. Because these >> differences are so tricky, I think, that a lay person like me cannot be >> blamed for agreeing with panentheism. >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> >> >> 17. September 2024 um 20:09 Uhr >> Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Helmut, List: >> >> The question is not whether creation is immanent in God, but whether God is >> immanent in creation. For Peirce and other theists, God is not immanent in >> the universe, which simply means that the universe is neither identical to >> God (pantheism) nor somehow contained within God (panentheism). >> Nevertheless, God is omnipresent in the universe, both spatially >> (everywhere) and temporally (always), although God is not at any one place >> nor at any one instant because God does not have a physical body, limited or >> otherwise--as Peirce says, God is a "disembodied spirit, or pure mind" (CP >> 6.490, 1908). God's omnipotence is his ability to do anything that is >> logically possible in accordance with his eternal divine nature. >> >> Again, unlike theism, the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ is a uniquely >> Christian teaching, along with the Trinity. The traditional understanding is >> that the immaterial and eternal Son (second Person) assumed a human nature >> and voluntarily refrained from exercising many of the prerogatives of his >> divine nature during his life on earth. He was still almighty/omnipotent >> according to his divine nature, but he suffered and died according to his >> human nature. When he ascended into heaven forty days after his >> resurrection, he communicated some of his divine attributes to his human >> nature, such that he remains both divine and human forever. In the words of >> the Apostle Paul ... >> >> Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though >> he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be >> grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in >> the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by >> becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore >> God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every >> name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on >> earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is >> Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11) >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:35 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Jon, List, >>> >>> I was asking, how can God´s creation (I said property too) be called >>> "non-immanent", if God doesn´t have a limited body, and also pervades His >>> creation / property. The same question works, instead of with >>> "non-immanent", also with "distinct from God´s necessary being", or "not an >>> organically connected part of God". >>> >>> I see, that having not a limited body, and pervading everything, is not >>> only a capability, but a non-capability as well, as this way God is not >>> able to step away, and leave His creation alone, not even for a moment. >>> That contradicts almightiness, the same way, like the paradoxon, that God >>> cannot create a stone so heavy, that he cannot lift it. I guess, this >>> paradoxon has been solved by the introduction of Jesus, who is God too, but >>> isn´t almighty, even died on a cross. >>> >>> So i guess, that sin and sinners, actions and actors, that "have fallen >>> from God", are not non-immanent or apart from God, but rather like a >>> sickness of God´s. But He has a good immune system: The good. >>> >>> Best regards, Helmut >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to >> repair / update all the links! ► 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . ► To >> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> 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. >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to >> repair / update all the links! ► 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . ► To >> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> 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. >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while >> to repair / update all the links! >> ► 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> 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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
