The specific designation I was replying to was a one line post which which said an article about triadic physics was not "Peircean" so I shall let that be my example. I have sensed from Peirce the suggestion that the self itself is vague. And that the community is important to the disposition of things. The conclusion of 4 Incapacities and the coda which ends "his glassy essence" concludes what can only be a fairly dour view of the self. But where I might share the dour attitude would be in accepting the term "Peircean" as having a partricular meaning. I am not sure that anyone including Peirce can arrive at any statement that says, beyond the time of its utterance, who one is. I believe the self is most alive when it is acting on conscious considerations that lead to conclusions that are in concert with universal values. And that the person is formed daily by the exercise (or not) of consciousness. So my response to Steven was both a protest against the assumption that "Peircean" is clear expression and an effort to address the problems I see in the act of characterization. Objects of bullying are frequent victims of the most onerous characterizations. We often torment ourselves over the characterizations of us by others.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
