Stephen wrote: Does this explain it?
P reply: Not for me; your post seems vague. I wonder what sort of specific
examples you might have. I find that when I say something about Peirce that I
can back up with examples, such statements are usually well received. When I'm
incorrect in regards to Peirce and things Peircean, I like to know it. (A good
example is my recent mistake about Peirce's early nominalism). There are some
things that I've seen as naturally evolving out of Peirce (as new applications
based on his semiotic, such as educational philosophy and also Ai). And
there are some things I agree more with Dewey than Peirce (such as the
relationship between abduction and experience).
Just wondering where you are coming from on this.
Regards, Phyllis
"Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Phyllis...I feel that if I say Peirce is (any characteristic) or say that
>of anyone I am in violation of the command judge not that you be not
>judged. I see even "Peircean" as a sort of litmus test (are you are aren't
>you?). Does this explain it? Cheers, S
>
>*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
>
>On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>> I don't understand your post.
>> Phyllis
>>
>>
>> "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Peircean" Yikes. The problem is that anything we do about Peirce of
>> anyone really is characterization which I hold to be at worst a curse and
>> at best a brake on the inherent freedom of anyone to grow, change or, ahem,
>> participate in reality aka continuity. I will keep quiet but really.
>>
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Contradictory and I doubt Peircean.
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 19, 2014, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 h
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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 .
