For starters this unpublished fragment noted in Brent (2nd ed) as CSP to PC [20 July 1890) (L 77) which reads in part:: "Since then God is using me ... should I not be content? ..." And then his explicit description of his experience in church which he describes in his own words as mystical on pp 209-10 of the same book. CSP's conclusion" "I have never before been mystical, but now I am." The practical effect was his effort to define pragmaticism as distinct from pragmatism and complete 70K or so mss pages, many following the experience of April 24, 1992. I would suggest the practical effect is manifest 100 years following his death. And that such testimony in itself should at least be accorded a place in scholarly awareness of his biography.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Stephen, just a few insertions by way of reply: > > > > gary f. > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 20-May-14 8:48 AM > *To:* Gary Fuhrman > *Cc:* Peirce List > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, > science and religion: text 1 > > > > 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? > > > > gf: What's metaphysical, in Peirce's sense of the word, is his scientific > metaphysics, as he called it. This has very little to do with either > Musement or mysticism; but anyway metaphysics is not the issue here. As > Kees explains in 9.5, Peirce's remarks on God are primarily based on the > "natural light" of reason, which is essential to his > critical-common-sensism, which I think is what you're referring to here: > > > > 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. > > > > gf: But Peirce does not give any description of the experience, nor does > he mention any kind of knowledge gained from it, or any difference it made > to his life. > > > > I do not think the NA could have been written without that foundational > event. > > > > gf: Why not? And why is there no mention of mystical experience in the NA? > Again, the argument there is based on "natural light," on which Peirce > contributed an entry in *Baldwin's Dictionary*, defining it as "A natural > power, or instinct, by which men are led to the truth about matters which > concern them, in anticipation of experience or revelation.... The phrase is > used in contradistinction to supernatural light." Peirce frequently refers > to this "natural light" (often using Galileo's phrase "il lume naturale") > in his works about the logic of science, and I don't think he ever refers > to it as "mystical." Nor does it appear to be "mystical" in our current > sense of the word, because it is eminently *reasonable.* > > > > 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. > > > > Where then is the evidence, or testimony from Peirce, that any "mystical > experience" of his had any practical effect on his habits, his logic or his > semiotic? I don't see any such evidence in Brent. > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
