Gary R., List: I am sincerely grateful for the honesty of your response. We indeed have come to embrace very different conceptions of the nature of God, as well as the relationship between God and creation. While "there are elements of his metaphysics and semeiotics which a fully developed panentheology requires," it strikes me as consistent with the direction in which your thought is progressing to set aside Peirce's definition of God as *Ens necessarium* and my "Peircean argumentation" for understanding God to be the dynamical object of the entire universe as one immense sign.
Nevertheless, I agree that all three Persons of the Trinity are involved in what "is happening here and now," sustaining the universe at every moment, even while disagreeing that God as one eternal substance is *affected by* such events. I also agree that "Peirce's three categories and three Universes suggest a universal parallel," as we have discussed in the past--even "vestiges" in creation itself, as suggested by Andrew Robinson in his 2010 book, *God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Semiotics of C. S. Peirce*. Perhaps we can revisit these areas of common ground from our diverging perspectives in the future. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 4:13 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > JAS: [Y]our 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." > GR: Yes. The further development of panentheism most certainly needs > 'specification'. For unlike theism, which has had several centuries to > 'stabilize' (with the whole weight of church doctrine and dogma and > cultural indoctrination -- kings and popes included -- to support it, and > this being so even following the Reformation), a panentheistic > understanding which means to bring about a rational rapprochement of > science and religion, atheism and theism, will take some time to > 'stabilize'. In the language of programmers and developers, I consider > that to be a feature and not a bug. For, after all, the theological and > religious dogmatism that has suffused religious and, so, *cultural *history > -- and not just only Christian culture -- will indeed take much more than > 'stabilization' to offset the preemptoriousness of the major religions. > Give us a little time. > > JAS: 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. > GR: Re: (1): I continue to hold that a trinitarian (lower case) view of > the sacred workings of the cosmos which, despite what you'd written in > another thread, is most certainly *not only a Christian 'invention' *but > occurs in several other major religions' symbolism. > > JAS: 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. > GR: Alright. But then *how *is God involved? Is not Christ and the Holy > Spirit involved in what "is happening here and now"? You seem to want to > have it both ways: *Ens Necessarium* (one God), *and* the Trinity. But > then you wrote: > > JAS: 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. > GR: It is very likely that while I am not up to such Scholastic, that is, > 'subtle differentiations', as you tend to sometimes offer, Jon, yet for me > the implications of trinitatrian thought in several developed religions -- > and, yes, perhaps especially in Christianity -- seem critical to > approaching these cosmological questions so that it is not only a matter > "of God's own eternal and spiritual being," but of how a universe comes > into being and sustains itself. > > So, from a Christian perspective (which one can see as symbolic, but > *real* in its cosmic implications), the work of the second and third > persons of the Trinity are essential to an understanding of the creation > and sustenance of this universe from a Christian perspective. But Peirce's > three categories and three Universes suggest a universal parallel. > > JAS: 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. > GR: I am less concerned with "God. . .(by definition)" -- actually, I mean *I > am not at all concerned *with "God by definition;" I am not concerned at > all with the question if "it is *logically impossible* for God in *any > version* of panentheism to be conceived as *Ens necessarium*, without > qualification," than I am with an understanding of God as truly involved in > the world, as Jesus (or, Mohammed) loved and cared for us -- and wanted us > to love and to care for each other, to care, perhaps most especially, for > the children. Bringing about that sort of spirituality -- for the religious > and the non-religious -- is what my 'version' of panentheism hopes to > contribute to. > > JAS: 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. > GR: So, I reject your interpretation of God as the dynamical object of the > universe. Really, finally, I must admit that I find Peirce's theology > wanting. But there are elements of his metaphysics and semeiotics which a > fully developed panentheology requires. > > 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.
