[PEIRCE-L] GOD AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN INDIAN TRADITIONS - 1st Call For Papers
Please circulate widely. Apologies for multiple emails. -- CALL FOR PAPERS -- GOD AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN INDIAN TRADITIONS Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Worcester College, University of Oxford, UK May 15-17, 2024 Deadline: March 1, 2024 Website: https://www.god-and-consciousness.com/oxford-conference Submission of abstract: god.and.consciousn...@gmail.com -- KEYNOTE SPEAKERS - Timothy O'Connor, Indiana University, USA - Amit Chaturvedi, University of Hong Kong, China - Gavin Flood, University of Oxford, UK - Benedikt Paul Göcke, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany - Joanna Leidenhag, University of Leeds, UK - Anand Jayprakash Vaidya, San Jose State University, USA -- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Divinity in some theistic (or theistically inclined) Indian religions is often conceived monotheistically, as a supreme OmniGod (much like in Western accounts of God). Monotheistic conceptions of God occur in Śaivism, Śaktism, Vaiṣṇavism, Sikhism as well as Indian reiterations of Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. There are also arguably monotheistic concepts of God given by the Indian philosophical schools (darṣanas), such as Vedānta, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, and Yoga. Despite the evidence for a general Indian religious disposition towards monotheism, Indian concepts of God can exhibit certain peculiarities that distance them from the traditional idea of monotheism. For example, some Indian conceptions of God revolve around God’s being united with the world and finite conscious beings in various ways. This is the heart of the famous Vedānta debate about the relationship between Brahman - the ultimate conscious reality - and the rest of existence, and of a wide variety of theistic views on the relation between ultimate conscious reality and the world. Interpretations range through idealism, qualified monism, dualism, and a mixture of monism and dualism (as in the different theories of bhedābheda, or difference and non-difference). The reference to consciousness (in the expressions “conscious beings” and “ultimate conscious reality”) is not gratuitous. Philosophical Indian traditions such as Vedānta and Sāṅkhya have developed sophisticated ontological views on consciousness. These views have strongly influenced and been influenced by Indian theistic traditions. For example, in the Bhavagad Gītā - a key Vedānta text strongly informed by Sāṅkhya (or proto-Sāṅkhya) thought - matter is seemingly given a cognitive aspect that somehow intermediates the conscious experience of ordinary living beings. But the Gītā also says that God is the source (prabhava) of consciousness and matter. While matter and consciousness are fundamental aspects of reality, in God they have a common ontological ground. Depending on how a specific theistic tradition interprets this, its concept of God might imply some kind of theory of consciousness. Against this background, two sets of questions arise, which in current debates are often overlooked or are only partially addressed. The first relates to the nature and tenability of concepts of God; the second concerns the nature of consciousness. On the first set of questions, one might ask: - Can certain concepts of God in Indian traditions really be regarded monotheistic in the Western sense of the term? - Or are they closer to panentheism, theistic pantheism, henotheism or polytheism? - What divine properties do the traditions ascribe to their respective divinity or sets of divinity? - Can the corresponding concepts of God be described in a consistent way? - Is it sensible to presuppose that they should be describable in such a way? - Do any of these concepts of God possess an advantage over Western philosophical accounts of God? On the second set of questions, it could be asked: - Which views on consciousness are presupposed by Indian concepts of God? - How can these views be philosophically articulated? - What are their advantages and disadvantages compared to standard accounts of consciousness found in Western analytical philosophy? - Furthermore, are these accounts compatible with a scientific worldview? - Can the concept of God contribute to a scientifically consistent theory of consciousness? -- SUBMISSION We invite submissions of contributed papers that address the above questions in relation to specific Indian traditions. Abstracts must have a maximum of 3000 characters and be written in English. They must be submitted by March 1, 2024, through the e-mail god.and.consciousn...@gmail.com, with the subject “Submission to the Oxford Conference”. In the body of the message, the author should state whether the paper will be presented in-person or online (preference will be given to in-person presentations). Notification of acceptance will be released on March 11,
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categorizations of triadic Relationships (Was Re: Graphical Representations of the Sign by Peirce)
Edwina, Jerry, Helmut, List, Peirce's writings are always worth analyzing, but there has been over a century of research in the cognitive sciences, especially neuroscience. Peirce was familiar with the research of his day.. William James, who was a professional in that field, acknowledged that he had learned more from Peirce than he could ever repay. But another century of research has been done, and the developments have accelerated with the latest technologies of brain scans and implants. I really don't trust speculation about issues of neuroscience that ignore that research. But I believe that it is worthwhile to compare Peirce's writings to the latest developments in the cognitive sciences. Neuroscience, especially, has made immense progress in recent years with the developments in brain scans and implants. It's interesting to evaluate Peirce's writings in terms of the latest developments. In many cases, I have found that Peirce's ideas can serve as guidelines for interpreting recent research, but there is no one-to-one mapping of the details. John From: "Edwina Taborsky" Sent: 1/20/24 9:25 AM Jerry list I'll answer within what I understand as ‘forms of consciousness’. Again - I don’t know what YOU mean by the phrase. But in comparison to your view, I’d have to include the processes of memory or habit - even in primisense, which is a first primal awareness of ‘otherness’.- as in a newborn. But consciosuness, I think, has to gradually include even quasi-mind memory or habits [ ie, the development of habits of association of ’that’ input sensation’ with ’that experience'. This enables anticipation. It need not be symbolic of course, since all matter has this capacity to develop habits and thus, anticipate. A first primal awareness or feeling [primisense] would emerge within the experience of an ‘Other’ [ via Altersense]. This experience would have to be semiosic, ie, triadic, or within the operation of the sign triad, I can thus understand your reference to ’tones, tokens, types’ [ which are comparable to 1ns, 2ns, 3ns] and aren’t confined to words - see 1.322, where he discusses a blind person’s experience of ’scarlet colour’. Therefore the question simply comes down to - is primisense or pure feeling totally alienated from habit? I think that a body’s capacity to even experience feeling, requires ‘habit’ - ie - the existence of a stable ground [even if it’s purely and only physiological ..ie hearing, or sight or touch or..]…which ground sensation within the perimeters of ‘habit’. The subsequent ‘awareness’ of this sensation, develops within multiple experiences [altersense].. Edwina On Jan 20, 2024, at 1:21 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: List:Edwina: Please step back a bit from your professional persona as a scholar. Please ask yourself “what do these words mean in terms of my life experiences?” Do you experience “forms of consciousness”? How are the forms of personal consciousness you experience related to or conjoined to your memories? Thanks for considering my “off the wall” questions. Cheers Jerry On Jan 19, 2024, at 8:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Jerry, list I’m not sure of your question. I’m quoting Peirce. These terms refer to his outline of ‘forms of consciousness’. And I don’t see what your reference to aphantasia means. Edwina On Jan 18, 2024, at 10:49 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: List: On Jan 11, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Peirce’s outline of these forms of consciousness [7.551] of Feeling, Altersense and Medisense’ or primisense, alter sense, medisense. And, just as in his outline of the modal categories, these can be subdivided, so to speak, for ‘primisense’ has only one mode; Altersnese has two modes [Sensagion and Will]; and Medisense has three modes ‘Abstraction, Suggestion, Association’. 7.551. I am curious about your reasoning here. In particular with regard to those individuals with the genetic deficiency of aphantasia (lack of ability to recall images or mental pictures). Are these terms intended to be “forms” of consciousness? Would perhaps conscious “tones” more like musical notations? Clearly, a basis to related such terms to either “tokens” or “types” seem inappropriate given CSP’s allocation of these terms to words (composed from alphabetic symbols). Alternatively, perhaps I’m not reading your usage of “modal categories” properly…. Cheers Jerry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
