[peirce-l] Evolutionary Love and the Implicate Order (Peirce/Bohm) was, Re: Peircean prayer, was: Re: one list archive now working

[Gary Richmond]

Thomas, No intrusion at all. Thanks for identifying the "The Law of Love and the Law of Reason are quite at one" quotation, which I had commented on recently in a discussion of the goal of inquiry & learning as the proper one for the university, but couldn't remember exactly where I'd found it when I posted my recent post-script. Now as for your PS, that was very interesting indeed. You wrote: If you accept that ���love consists in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else��� and compare this with what a sign is and so consider that  . . .(CP 2.92) and further consider e.g. what the Interpretant wishes to do for its sign  (which latter is an interpretant itself in turn)... Now, I don't know who defined love as above, but it seems to me reasonable  and quite logical though it ain't that easy then;-) No, it ain't that easy! You asked who defined love as consisting "'in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else." Perhaps you are thinking of another passage in Peirce, in the article "Evolutionary Love" where he writes: CP 6.289   Everybody can see that the statement of St. John [viz., that "God is Love" GR] is the formula of an evolutionary philosophy, which teaches that growth comes only from love, from I will not say self-sacrifice, but from the ardent impulse to fulfill another's highest impulse. Was that "ardent impulse to fulfill another's highest impulse" the idea you had in mind? In any event, the rest of that passage is well worth quoting as it puts an interesting slant on especially the "reasonable" part of the equation: law of love == law of reason. Peirce continues: Suppose, for example, that I have an idea that interests me. It is my creation. It is my creature; for as shown in last July's Monist, it is a little person. I love it; and I will sink myself in perfecting it. It is not by dealing out cold justice to the circle of my ideas that I can make them grow, but by cherishing and tending them as I would the flowers in my garden. The philosophy we draw from John's gospel is that this is the way mind develops; and as for the cosmos, only so far as it yet is mind, and so has life, is it capable of further evolution. Love, recognizing germs of loveliness in the hateful, gradually warms it into life, and makes it lovely. That is the sort of evolution which every careful student of my essay "The Law of Mind"†2 must see that synechism calls for. Well, more on this and I'll have to move it to the thread "Peircean prayer" where I'd like soon to discuss a possible connection of Peirce's ideas on evolutionary love with David Bohm's implicate order, especially as it's expressed in his interview with L. Wijers (which can be found as the last chapter On Creativity, Bohm, Routledge, 1996). For example, as part of an answer to Wijers' question: "Q Does a creator God also exist in your implicate order?" Bohm replies (this is a mere snippet in a long reply): I think there is an intelligence that is implicit there. A kind of intelligence unfolds. The source of intelligence is not necessarily in the brain. The ultimate source of intelligence is much more enfolded into the whole. . .  [T]here is a creative intelligence underlying the whole, which might have as one of the essentials that which was meant by the word "God." (Bohm, op. cit., 131) There are several other Peirce-like comments in the interview. For example when asked: "Q What was reality for you, then?" Bohm begins his reply by saying: Well, reality would mean something that would have some existence independently of being known.[127] Perhaps I will move this response to the other thread (but change its Subject) in case there's anyone on the list who's been thinking about the Peirce-Bohm connection. Gary Thomas Riese wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:36:52 +0100, Gary Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote: "the law of Love and the law of Reason are one" (I'm not sure that's an  exact quote). GR "The Law of Love and the Law of Reason are quite at one." in: Review of Clark University, 1889-1899. Decennial Celebration", Science  11 (1900), p. 620; reprinted in P. P. Wiener, ed., Charles S. Peirce: Selected  Writings. (Values in a Universe of Chance), Dover, New York, 1966, p. 332. Regards Thomas Riese. P.S. If you accept that ���love consists in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else��� and compare this with what a sign is and so consider that A Sign is anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in  respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation  to the same Object, and that in such a way as to bring a Fourth into relation to that Object  in the same form, ad infinitum. (CP 2.92) and further consider e.g. what the Interpretant wishes to do for its sign  (which latter is an interpretant itself in turn)... Now, I don't know who defined love as above, but it seems to me reasonable  and quite logical though it ain't that easy then;-) Sorry for intruding, just had this at my fingertips. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com