Jon, List, I am not much interested in conforming to 'classic' definitions of 'immanence" or "theism" or even "panentheism." That is to say that while you seem to cleave to these classic definitions, this is not necessarily how I and others look at definition as it seems to deny that definitions change and grow, and even in time sometimes get closer to more accurately expressing the meaning of the definiendum. So for the present purpose I am not primarily with how Peirce and the 19th century and classic theism might have defined these words.
Further, and as I have previously said, I think there may be a kind of cosmic semeiotic over-reach in Peirce's thinking on this matter, that his personal religious beliefs (as you have admitted, so have yours) may have influenced his religious metaphysics and cosmology. I have also suggested that perhaps Peirce thought that making a 'scientific argument' for classic theism, wholly dominant in his day among at least the religious minded, was the most likely way to bring others, including atheistic and agnostic philosophers and scientists, to a belief in the divine, something which he thought would be a great gift to humanity. I agree. I am solidly on the side of the belief that the universe is infused with the spirit of God. As I see it, much (but perhaps not all) of contemporary atheism has tended towards seeing the universe as a mindless effect of that putative singularity, the Big Bang, so reducing the Great Cosmic Drama into little more than a chance accident which, through some mysterious 'power' -- which continues to evade me -- starts to spontaneously self-organize. Such forms of reductionism can lead to thinking of the universe as a kind of material (and subatomic, etc.) clockwork universo so that when the human is finally evolved even 'consciousness' -- even love! -- are seen as merely epiphenomena. I'm with Dante (and Peirce!) as opting for "the Love which moves the sun and other stars." But continuing with the principal point: Although I've asked you to do so, you continue not to address an essential idea of the Cosmic Christian viewpoint I've been expounding, namely that of the *triune God*. So, again I ask: Where do Christ and the Holy Spirit stand in Peirce's cosmic religious understanding and yours, that is if they do at all? I have already outlined my panentheism position, no doubt missing a great deal of nuance especially as it does indeed involve a division of divine resources, so to speak, thus involving both transcendence and immanence. So here it is again expressed as succinctly (and metaphorically) as I can: God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity, sits immovable in His heaven having created the world. Well, there would appear to have been yet* one additional 'movement' *of the Father: He sends his only begotten Son into the world, in a panentheistic view not only the earthly world that Jesus inhabited when on this planet, but the cosmic world as a whole. Here, as the second Person, Christ is tasked with, and through the Holy Spirit, of 'saving' the world, that is, bringing it to God, *evolutionary love* moving the cosmos and each one of us towards that saving grace. It would appear that there is no place for cosmic love in your theism, Jon; but if I'm mistaken, please correct me. Meanwhile, it certainly appears to be there in Peirce's, I would say. So that appears to me to be a kind of contradiction in his religious cosmology as you have explicated it: What's love got to do with it? In my view, the expressions 'Father', 'Son', and 'Holy Spirit' as descriptions of the triune God are meant to help us understand the *relationship *between the three Persons of the Trinity -- *including the Cosmic Trinity.* And I believe that Peirce's semeiotic and trichotomic can be developed in ways which both enhance our understanding of the sacred underpinnings of the cosmos, but which are also more likely than a traditional and dogmatic theism to bring many to an understanding that the cosmos is through and through infused with the spirit and love of the triune God. To state this from a rather differently conceived scientific cosmology: *I believe that metaphysically developing Peirce's semeiotic and trichotomic in the direction of seeing the persons of the trinity as vital symbols of a universal interplay of the 3 universes, might serve to enhance our understanding of the fundamental principles underlying the cosmos as expression of the divine at work in this, a living cosmos. Such an approach would be rooted in the semeiotic interaction of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, that through this dynamic interplay of the 3 worlds that it might more clearly and intensely* *come to be seen that the universe is inherently infused with the spirit of evolutionary love expressed through the relationships among the three universal categories, the Three Worlds.* That, of course, is a mere hypothesis. So, to sum up: I tend to think that Peirce employed his trichotomic semeiotic within his religious cosmology essentially in the interest of attempting to support his own religious views (which, however, like mine *might* have changed over time), that it is possible to imagine a metaphysical use of them in another direction, that of panentheism and, ultimately, a kind of *semeiotic trichotomic*, so,* scientific panentheism* where the divine is indeed actively involved in the created universe. Best, Gary R On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 12:50 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > You misunderstand--the definition of "immanent" is what has apparently > changed since Peirce's time, not the definition of "panentheism." As > Gregersen notes in the very first sentence of his 2004 article > <https://www.profligategrace.com/documents/Grant/Gregersen_Three%20Varieties%20of%20Panentheism.pdf> > that > I have quoted before, "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)." Google's current definition from Oxford Languages is > "the belief or doctrine that God is *greater *than the universe and *includes > *and *interpenetrates *it" (emphases mine). Theism maintains instead that > God is *other *than the universe and *transcends *and *sustains *it. > > As I keep emphasizing, a key resulting difference is "the claim [of > panentheism] that there exists a real two-way interaction between God and > world," because "the idea that the world affects God differs markedly ... > from classic philosophical theism, which has traditionally claimed that God > remains unaffected by the fates and fortunes of the world" (Gregersen, p. > 20). "Thus the real demarcation line between panentheism and classic > philosophical theism ... is that [in the latter] the natures and activities > of the creatures do not have a real feedback effect on God" (p. 24). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 11:59 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jon, List, >> >> - JAS: Remember, in *The Century Dictionary*, Peirce defines the >> "doctrine of an immanent deity" as implying "that the world, or the soul >> of >> the world, ... either is or is in God," thus associating it with both >> pantheism (the world or its soul *is *God) and panentheism (the world >> or its soul *is in *God). This is what he explicitly and repeatedly >> rejects, not the *current *dictionary definition of "immanent" as >> "permanently pervading and sustaining the universe," which theists affirm >> as *following from* God's transcendence and omnipresence. Perhaps >> that has caused some confusion in these discussions, thus highlighting the >> importance of careful terminology. >> >> So, rather than following the 19th century definition of panentheism as >> "the world or its soul *is in *God," I find that I do indeed hold to the >> current dictionary definition of panentheism as God "permanently pervading >> and sustaining the universe," and I am perfectly content with that. >> >> Metaphysics may be divided into, i, General Metaphysics, or Ontology; ii, >> Psychical, or Religious, Metaphysics, concerned chiefly with the questions >> of 1, God, 2, Freedom, 3, Immortality; and iii, Physical Metaphysics, which >> discusses the real nature of time, space, laws of nature, matter, etc. CP >> 1.192 >> >> >> So, I am beginning to see that I follow Peirce in most everything except >> his religious metaphysics. And further, I am beginning to see why you >> cannot call me your Christian brother, for I do not hold to the doctrines, >> dogmas, creeds, etc. of "orthodox" Christianity, while I am coming to see >> -- through some recent concentrated research -- that Peirce does. Quite a >> revelation! >> >> 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.
