Jon, List, I appreciate your looking into various expressions of panentheism. The one I am expounding differs from the three you outlined in being informed by Peirce's work, not the parts you've been emphasizing for the most part, but others (I'll try to offer references to some of these in the days and weeks ahead). Like so many topics and disciplines which might be further (and better) developed by the knowledge of Peirce's work, panentheology has barely been touched by it. I would hope that that neglect may in time be corrected.
Best, Gary R On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 6:11 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > My understanding is that there are different versions of panentheism > corresponding to different senses in which God is conceived as "containing" > the universe. In fact, I came across an online paper yesterday by Niels > Henrik Gregersen that posits "Three Varieties of Panentheism" ( > https://www.profligategrace.com/documents/Grant/Gregersen_Three%20Varieties%20of%20Panentheism.pdf). > As the introduction summarizes ... > > NHG: Literally, pan-en-theism means that "all" (Gk. *pan*) is "in" God > (Gk. *theos*), but God is not exhausted by the world as a whole (G > W). > ... > The problem is, however, that the concept of panentheism is not stable in > itself. The little word "in" is the hinge of it all. There may be as many > panentheisms as there are ways of qualifying the world's being "in God." > The idea of panentheism therefore needs specification, and this can be > offered only by the interpretative frameworks of specific philosophical or > religious doctrines of God. ... > There is, however, an important ontological position, which is more or > less shared by all versions of panentheism, and which I find theologically > central. This is the claim that there exists a real two-way interaction > between God and world, so that (1) the world is somehow "contained in God" > and (2) there will be some "return" of the world into the life of God. The > idea of bilateral relations between God and world may even be said to be > distinctive for panentheism. > > > The conclusion restates (2) as "the world affects God and returns to God," > highlighting the fundamental incompatibility of *any *version of > panentheism with God being *Ens necessarium* and thus unaffected by the > world, as well as God being the dynamical object of the entire universe as > one immense sign. The three *specific *versions of panentheism that > Gregersen identifies are the following. > > - Soteriological panentheism - "lt is only by the redeeming grace of > God that the world can dwell in God; not everything shares automatically in > divine life." > - Expressivist panentheism - "the divine Spirit expresses itself in > the world by going out of God and returning to God, enriched by the > experiences of world history." > - Dipolar panentheism - "God is assumed to be in some aspects > timeless, beyond space and self-identical, while in other aspects temporal, > spatial, and affected by the world." > > Gary R. seems to have something like soteriological panentheism in mind, > although I invite him to correct me if this is inaccurate. Expressivist > panentheism is associated with the German idealists Hegel, Schelling, and > Krause. Dipolar panentheism is basically the process theology of Whitehead > and (especially) Hartshorne. Except for Jeff Downard's recent suggestion > that an infinite God might "contain" an infinite universe in a way similar > to how the real numbers contain the natural numbers as a "larger" infinite > multitude, I am not aware of a "mathematical panentheism." As for > "mathematical theology," we can certainly employ mathematical models to > help explain relevant concepts, like my diagram of the universe as a > hyperbolic continuum on the projective plane. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> *Correction: *I replaced "x=f(y) with "y=f(x) between the 2nd and the >> 3d third of my post. >> 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. "y=f(x)" >> 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 >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
