Dear Steven
All I have written is in accordance with what you write here. So I do not feel
you are arguing with me, but with an interpretation of what I wrote that I
cannot recognize or support.
I wish you the best of health.
Søren
Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne af Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sendt: 1. juni 2014 19:57
Til: Søren Brier
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith; [email protected]; Kathrine Elizabeth Lorena
Johansson; Claudia Jacques ([email protected]); Elisabeth Sørup; Seth
Miller; Leslie Combs
Emne: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science and
religion: text 1
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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] På vegne af Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sendt: 31. maj 2014 01:19
Til: Søren Brier
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Kathrine Elizabeth
Lorena Johansson; Claudia Jacques
([email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 .
