I think within the NA text there is ample basis for inferring that at the time of its writing CSP had long practiced what he advocated - a damningly unstructured mode of thinking that he advocated almost universally and certainly for persons untrained in the philosophy that is the basis for most Peirce studies. Rising from play, pure play, linking the barely described universes of experience, but saying enough to imply a triadic semiotic originating in vagueness and progressing through rude shock to a creative linkage that might have the chance to move toward activation, even habit. If this is not meta-physical, then what is? I think CSP has been virtually ignored regarding what might be called his populist or everyman assertions. Turning to revelation and mysticism, I am inclined to credit Brent with insight into the way CSP dealt with the realization of his situation and his experience in the Episcopal Church and to call that mystical in the sense of it being something that siezed him, not something he simply realized. I do not think revelation means more than a description of that experience. I do not think the NA could have been written without that foundational event. I do not see science as an object of worship for Peirce, rather as a simple acknowledgement that things, perhaps extending as far as the mystical, can be measured and evaluated in terms of their practical effect.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote: > Søren, you've given us a lot to think about(!) in this introduction to the > final chapter of Kees' book, and I can only focus on a couple of key words > here: "mystical" and "revelation". > > > > I'm aware of the place in the Brent biography (revised ed., p. 210) > referring to "an unsent letter from Peirce's hand describing a mystical > revelation." Yet I'm not aware of any passage in Peirce's published > writings -- and I mean published *now*, not just published during his > lifetime -- where he applies the term "mystical" in an unreservedly positive > sense; and his opinion of "revelation" was even less positive, as far as I > can see. I've also seen no clear evidence to support Brent's claim that his > "mystical experience" at age 52 had a profound effect on his later life. I > haven't read all the secondary sources you cite here, so maybe that's why I > haven't seen such evidence; but I'd like to see more specific support for > your emphasis on the "mystical" as an important element of Peirce's > religion (and maybe a clearer definition of what that word means in Peirce). > > > > I do agree with Raposa and others who describe Peirce as a "panentheist," > but I don't think that either his panentheism or his "worship of science" > places much value on either mysticism or revelation. In my view, Peirce's > God is a combination of creative power with "reasonableness," and that's > why "*the best way to worship him is through the religion of science."* > > > > I haven't included quotes from Peirce here, but I'll be happy to do so if > you (or anyone) want to challenge my view of Peirce's religious > orientation. Meanwhile -- Thanks again for this introduction! > > > > gary f. > > > > } The oceanic vow of great compassion has no shore or limit, and saves > living beings with release from the harbor of suffering. [Dogen] { > > *www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm <http://www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm>* }{ > Peirce on God > > > > *From:* Søren Brier [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 19-May-14 10:35 AM > > 1. God is real but does not exist: so the best way to worship him is > through the religion of science > > > > I thought this sums up nicely Section 9.6 in Kees' book and was a good way > to start the discussion of: *God, science and religion*. Peirce's theory > of the relation between science and religion is one of the most > controversial aspects of his pragmaticist semiotics only second to his > evolutionary objective idealism influenced by Schelling (Niemoczynski and > Ejsing) and based on his version of Duns Scotus' extreme scholastic > realism, which Kees' did an exemplary presentation of as well. Peirce's > view of religion and how science is deeply connected to it in a way that > differs from what any other philosopher has suggested except Whitehead's > process philosophy, but there are also important differences here. > > > > I have no quarrels with Kees' exemplary understandable formulations in the > short space he has. That leaves opportunity for us to discuss all the > interesting aspects he left out like Peirce's *Panentheism* (Michael > Raposa , Clayton and Peacock), his almost *Neo-Platonist* (Kelly Parker > http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html ) metaphysics > of emptiness or *Tohu va Bohu* (see also Parker) and ongoing creation > in his process view, and from this basic idea of emptiness ( that is also > foundational to Nargajuna's Buddhism of the middle way ) a connection to > Buddhism. This was encouraging Peirce to see Buddhism and Christianity in > their purest mystical forms integrated into an agapistic > *Buddhisto-Christian* process view of God. Brent mentions an unsent > letter from Peirce's hand describing a mystical revelation in the second > edition of the biography. This idea of Buddhisto-Christianity was taken up > by Charles Hartshorne - one of the most important philosophers of > religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century - > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/ who also wrote about > Whitehead's process view of the sacred (see references)*. * > > I have collected many of the necessary quotes and interpreted them in this > article > http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/A%20Peircean%20Panentheist%20Scientific%20Mysticism.pdf, > and in Brier 2012 below. > > > > Even Peirce's evolutionary objective idealism is too much to swallow for > most scientists who are not fans of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. So even > today it is considering a violation of rationality to support an > evolutionary process objective idealism like Peirce's, which include a > phenomenological view. Even in the biosemiotic group this is dynamite. We > have had the most wonderfully heated metaphysical discussion and quarrels > about what it means to be scientific. That is when Marcel Barbieri left the > group being tired of Peirceans "unscientific stance". > > > > In my days studying in the sciences it was really a problem to be a true > religious Christian and a scientist at the same time as one of my teachers > in comparative physiology was. She reflected a lot on it in some > interesting seminars. (By the way I am not a member of any church or > religion). But it is difficult to be part of main stream science today if > you are an objective evolutionary idealist and you have the Peircean > family's conviction (see some of Steven Ericsson-Zenith's contributions > to this list and Benjamin Peirce's book on *Ideality in The Physical > Science*s) that science reveals the truth about God's nature. Look for > the truth and you will find God seems to be their view. Science is driven > by the ethic of finding truth and as such in the end it is a religious > search, as Pierce has integrated phenomenology with ethics and aesthetics > in his theory of science. Not keeping them apart as traditional views of > science does in the slip stream of logical positivism. > > > > But, what is also interesting is, that Peirce's view is close to a > combination of modern quantum field physics, thermodynamics, systems theory > and self-organization theory - except for his integration of phenomenology, > ethics and aesthetics in his theory of science. No system theorist and > cyberneticians have made this including, though there are some objective > idealists like Erwin Làszló standing out in meticulously working an > integrated view of modern physics with a pure mystical objective idealism > and system thinking through a concept of information. See for instance > *Science > and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. * But he also > started as a musician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3. > > > > Let us end with John Sheriff's wonderful summarizing statement about > Peirce's theory: > > > > "It places humans in a universe of signs that connect mind and matter, > inside and outside, transcendence and immanence. It gives us a theory of > human and cosmic meaning that does not lead to the dead-end nothingness of > pure form or to the decentering of the human subject, but to the > possibility of unlimited intellectual and moral growth..." > > > > > (Sheriff > 1994 p. XVI). > Interesting works dealing with Peirce's view on religion and science: > > > > Brent, J. (1938): *Charles S. Peirce: A Life, Revised and Enlarged > Edition* (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). > > Brier, S. (2010): The Conflict between Indian Vedic Mentality and Western > Modernity. I: *Mentality and Thought: North, South, East and West*. red. > / Per Durst-Andersen ; Elsebeth F. Lange. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen > Business School Press, 2010: 53-86. > > Brier, S. (2012). C. S. Peirce's Complementary and Transdisciplinary > Conception of Science and Religion, *Cybernetics & Human Knowing*, Volume > 19, Numbers 1-2, 2012: 59-94 > > Corrington, R. S. (2000)* An Introduction to C.S. Peirce: Philosopher, > Semiotician, and Ecstatic Naturalist *(Lanham, MD: Rowman and > Littlefield, 1993) and *A Semiotic Theory of Theology and Philosophy*(New > York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), > > Clayton, P. and Peacock, A. (2004). *In Whom We Live and Move and Have > Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific > World*, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. > > Ejsing, A. (2007). *Theology of anticipation: A constructive study of C. > S. Peirce*. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick > Publications. > > Hartshorne, C. (1972). *Whitehead's philosophy*. Lincoln, NE: University > of Nebraska Press. > > Hartshorne, C. (1984). Towards a Buddhisto-Christian religion. In K. K. > Inada & N. P. Jacobson (Eds.), *Buddhism and American thinkers* (pp. > 1-13). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. > > Innis, R.E. (2013). The Reach of the Aesthetic and Religious Naturalism: > Peircean and Polanyian Reflections, > https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD38-3/TAD38-3-fnl-pg31-50-pdf.pdf > > Orange, D. M. (1984). *Peirce's Conception of God: A Developmental > Study*(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), > > Peirce, B. (1881). *Ideality in the Physical* *Sciences* , Boston: > Little , Brown, and Company. > > Potters, V.G. (1997): *Charles S. Peirce: On Norms & Ideals*, American > Philosophy Series, Fordham University Press. > > Raposa, M. (1993).*Peirce's Philosophy of Religion* (Bloomington: > Indiana University Press, 1993) > > Sheriff, J.K. (1994): Charles Sanders Peirce's Guess at the Riddle: Ground > for Human Significance, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University > Press. > > Niemoczynski , L. (2011). *Charles Sanders Peirce and a Religious > Metaphysics of Nature* (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Søren Brier > > > > Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and commmunication > science, > > department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business > School, > > Home page: www.cbs.dk/staff/sbibc. , Cybersemiotics.com > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm. > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
