JAS, Gary R, list I will comment only on the last paragraph of this post by JAS. I feel it makes several assumptions which are not, in my interpretation, grounded in the Peircean analytic framework.
1] “all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" 6.5448ff emphasis added. I think the error here is to assume that Peirce meant by this - that the universe is composed ‘exclusively of Representamens’, ie, the first correlate in the semiosic triad. This is logically impossible, since the semiosic triad is irreducible - and we cannot conclude therefore, that the universe is composed exclusively of ONLY the singular first correlate. In addition, it would also mean that the Representamen could NOT be in a mode of Thirdness, since this mode, as a generality, cannot ‘exist’ on its own. We see from the ten classes, that six of the ten, are in a mode of Thirdness. See also 5.436, where Peirce is quite specific that "the third category - the category of thought, representation, triadic relation, mediation, genuine thirdness, thirdness as such - does not by itself constitute reality ...…can have no concrete being without action”. By the above - I understand that Thirdness…which he also sees as ‘representation, triadic relation’ - can’t ‘fill the universe’ ; it does not, on its own, ‘constitute reality’; it requires a connection to its other correlates. In addition, the term of ‘correlate means, by definition, interactive; it cannot exist alone. Given this error - [ of denying that Peirce meant the full triad with his use of ’signs] - one therefore must indeed search for a Dynamic Object [as well as a Dynamic Interpretant!!] - and the notion of ‘God’ is suggested. 2] But Peirce’s several outlines of the origin of the universe [1.412, 6.214-19] are quite clear - “the initial condition …was a state of just nothing at all”..the germinal nothing”. I don’t see where the concept of a Dynamic Object could emerge in this situation…Indeed, the concept of a DO could only emerge with the emergence of semiosis, which itself, could only emerge with the emergence of the three categories/universes - as outlined in 1.412. ..which then set up the existence of matter, and habits..both of which would enable interactions within semiosis and the functioning of a Dynamic Object. 3] This would thus bring us to a different definition of the term of God - which would not put that force outside of the Universe, would not have the universe itself consisting only of Representamens; but would instead, view the agential force of the functioning of the Universe as Mind - the force within the universe developing habits of organization of discrete matter as well as enabling chance deviations. This is my reading of Perice - and I’m aware that others do not share this interpretation but have their own interpretations. Edwina > On Sep 19, 2024, at 1:26 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary R., List: > > I appreciate the clarification that what you have in mind is not > soteriological panentheism as outlined by Gregersen, nor either of the other > two "varieties" that he identifies. However, your desire to develop a novel > "21st century version," incorporating certain insights from Peirce, > effectively confirms Gregersen's thesis that "the concept of panentheism is > not stable in itself" and therefore "needs specification." On the other hand, > I take it that you do concur with his two elements of "generic panentheism," > namely, "(1) the world is somehow contained by God and (2) the world affects > God and returns to God"; but again, please correct me if I am > misunderstanding. > > Concerning (1), it is highly misleading to characterize classical theism as > conceiving God to be "separate from the universe," "a remote, external > being," and "a distant creator." Frankly, these descriptions sound more like > deism--God created the universe and then left it to itself, such that God is > not involved at all in whatever is happening here and now. As I have said > before, classical theism instead maintains that God is omnipresent both > temporally and spatially--always and everywhere immediately present. God is > the creator and sustainer of the entire universe and everything within it at > every moment, but it is not an organic part of God's own eternal and > spiritual being. > > Concerning (2), if the world affects God, then God is subject to change; and > if God is subject to change, then God is (by definition) a contingent being > in at least some respects, not a thoroughly necessary being. In other words, > as I have also said before, it is logically impossible for God in any version > of panentheism to be conceived as Ens necessarium, without qualification. > Moreover, in accordance with Peirce's semeiotic, every sign must be > determined by a dynamical object that is unaffected by it; hence, if the > universe affects God, then God cannot be the dynamical object of the universe > as one immense sign. Panentheism thus requires either identifying something > else as the dynamical object of the universe--and what could that possibly > be?--or rejecting a semiosic ontology altogether. > > 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 Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <mailto:[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 >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
