Dear Soren, My apologizes for the delayed response (I am hospitalized currently). My comment deserves clarification as Soren suggests.
In brief, Charles' really should not be considered seriously with respect to social religion and his relationship with formal religion except through his Neglected Agument (yet another advocacy of his semiotic). God certainly is not something he "worships" in any traditional sense and his advocacy of "worship" is not at all religious ( but painfully manipulative and social). His father and brother are different and more holistic in this regard. If there is a commonreligious thread between them it is positivism. But Charles, in my view, should be dismissed. At some point Stanford will make my January talk on this subject available. Steven On Saturday, May 31, 2014, Søren Brier <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > Dear Steven > > > > It is obvious not so to me. So, would you care to explain us why you think > so? That would be an interesting contribution to our discussion. I have > long felt that although we in many ways were on the same track, there were > also some deep disagreement on basic interpretations. But I have not been > able to put my finger on it. Maybe you can? > > > > Cheers > > > > Søren > > > > *Fra:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *På vegne > af *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sendt:* 31. maj 2014 01:19 > *Til:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* [email protected]; Kathrine Elizabeth Lorena Johansson; > Claudia Jacques ([email protected]); Elisabeth Sørup; Seth Miller; > Leslie Combs > *Emne:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > > > 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 .
