In Peirces modal ontology, he prescinds from categories of possibility, actuality and

necessity to those of possibility, actuality and probability. This move precisely afrmed a
realist stance toward realitys probabilities (not unrelated to Scotus formal distinction),
but allows us to remain metaphysically agnostic as to which such probabilities refer to
ontological regulators (various teloi, e.g. teleopotent, teleomatic, teleonomic,
teleodynamic) and/or mere epistemic regularities (observer artifacts).
We can also remain agnostic regarding which of those teloi, in any given instance, would
be distinguished essentially (i.e. absolutes, necessities, eternalities) and which
emergently (e.g. thru cosmopoiesis, biopoiesis, etc).
Thats to say that we can realize human values, probabilistically, employing only vague
phenomenological categories, even as we remain in search of a metaphysic (e.g. the
most robust root metaphors).
We recognize that chance and necessity, pattern and paradox, order and chaos,
symmetry and asymmetry, the random and systematic, regulators and regularities, all
play real roles in reality when we prescind, ontologically, from modal necessities to
probabilities. The semiotic grammar changes from a reality, where noncontradiction and
excluded middle both hold to one where noncontradiction certainly still holds, but
excluded middle folds.
We dont thus solve Humes problem of induction, speculatively, but we recognize that,
practically, a fallibilist, probabilistic approach fosters human value-realizations because,
if epistemology indeed models ontology, human inference will work just ne if teloi
indeed correspond, ontologically, to an axiological sufciency of actual regulators.
Still, regarding freedom, we dont refer to realitys teloi univocally, in my view. Theres a
radical discontinuity, qualitatively, between the nonalgorithmic, teleodynamic,
anthroposemiotic freedom made possible by human symbolic language, and the more
algorithmic, teleonomic, biosemiotic freedom gifted by sentience, which is merely iconic
and indexical.
When I conceive of divine constraints relative to human freedom, I imagine omniscience,
omnipathy, omnibenevolence, omnipresence and omnipotence as those divine attributes
greater than which could not be conceived without otherwise violating the internal
coherence and consistency or external congruence and consonance between realitys
essential divine and metaphysical logics, kenotic included.
But it is only human freedom that, for me, is at stake and inviolable, a freedom that
emerged rather recently. I say emerged, phenomenologically, grinding no metaphysical
axes vis a vis philosophy of mind, such as to characterize it in panpsychic or
nonreductive physicalist terms, for example.
Suffering, to me, is a tehomic artifact that God only ever alleviates, save for essential
constraints, never using it instrumentally by design even though Hell always
transformatively exploit it for Her ends and our ultimate good.
I believe God has coaxed some regularities forth, while others might logically inhere in
various tehomic multitudinae. Those regularities with which God cannot interfere, in my

view, are those which would be indispensable to each humans freedom. When natural or
personal evils cause human suffering, Gods only constrained by inviolable tehomic
logics or His own essential kenosis vis a vis human, teleodynamic freedom (but not vis a
vis teleonomic, teleomatic or teleopotent teloi of lesser ontological densities or
metaphysical complexities than the imago Dei).
The above has been my defense to the logical problem of evil. I remain agnostic
regarding evidential theodicies. I believe theres a plurality of reasons that Gods wholly
exculpable, that the approaches of Augustine, Plantinga, yourself (Oord) and others
could be sufciently nuanced for a defense, logically.
Evidentially, cumulative case apologetics can provide at least a modicum of
equiplausibility vs alternative cosmogonies, but reality remains way too ambiguous for
us and way too ambivalent toward us to coerce one belief vs another, which leaves us
with normative justications of faith rather than epistemic warrants, in other words, with
forced, vital but live options, which may be quite to the point and in service of human
freedom.
Regarding the divine essence, hypostases and energies, our partaking and participation
in the energies remains an established THAT, theologically, but, as to HOW, again Im
metaphysically agnostic. Exactly what might be predicated of both God and creatures, I
dont know. All such predications, though, cannot be merely equivocal or analogical
rather than univocal or well introduce insurmountable causal disjunctions.
I believe God authors many more miracles than most imagine but, on the other hand
constrained way more, in certain ways, than classically conceived by most. I am deeply
sympathetic to your (Oord) project and strongly resonant with your approach.
I give human freedom inviolability via essential divine kenosis but dont univocally
predicate freedom or emergent teloi up and down the phylogenetic ladder or great chain
of _____.
charles sanders peirce, thomas oord, uncontrolling love of god, modal ontology,
possibility, actuality, necessity, probability, scotus formal distinction, ontological
regulators, teloi, teleopotent, teleomatic, teleonomic, teleodynamic, epistemic
regularities, cosmopoiesis, biopoiesis, sentiopoiesis, sapiopoiesis, veldopoiesis, root
metaphor, chance and necessity, pattern and paradox, order and chaos, symmetry and
asymmetry, the random and systematic, regulators and regularities, noncontradiction,
excluded middle both human value-realizations, epistemology models ontology,
nonalgorithmic, teleodynamic, anthroposemiotic, symbolic language, and the more
algorithmic, teleonomic, biosemiotic, sentience, iconic, indexical, divine constraints,
human freedom, omniscience, omnipathy, omnibenevolence, omnipresence,
omnipotence, divine attributes philosophy of mind, panpsychic nonreductive physicalist,
tehomic artifact, tehomic multitudinae, essential kenosis, teleodynamic teleonomic,
teleomatic, teleopotent ontological density, imago Dei, defense to the logical problem of
evil, augustine, plantinga, cumulative case apologetics, equiplausibility, cosmogonies,
normative justications, epistemic warrants, forced options, vital options, live options,
human freedom, divine essence, divine hypostases, divine energies, miracles essential
divine kenosis, univocal predications