There is no gainsaying that dualism is real. But it must be seen for what it is. And there is nothing that says what we call thirdness cannot or should not become reality, as it is an explicit move beyond the consequences of dualism and has been so throughout history as witness Gandhi, King and others great and small who see dualism not as the end but as a barrier to the achievement of agapaic results..
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, Jerry, I don't think that a rejection of the existential > reality of dualism can be sustained. After all, that was a key criticism of > Hegal, made by Peirce, that Hegel rejected the importance of Secondness - > and Secondness is dualistic and made up of 'we-they'. > > Thirdness, after all, has no existentiality. It is most certainly real but > does not, per se, exist in itself. For that - we require Secondness - and > matter/concepts in Secondness are existential because they are specific > and differentiated. If we refer to concepts, then even there, the > differentiations of Secondness and the acknowledgment of the law of the > excluded middle, are valid. > > Now, is Thirdness necessary for existence? Yes, I think so, but is > Secondness necessary for reality? Again - I think so. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> ; Phyllis Chiasson > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 7:27 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, > science and religion: text 1 > > Thanks Jerry. Nice to wake up to. I think we can generally say if it is > clearly dualistic and the reasoning is binary, we-they, > my-way-or-the-highway, we don't agree. If the thought is triadic, > reflecting thinking in threes as a conscious dealing with signs, we are at > least in the ball-park, stumbling fallibly toward something we can hold to. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> List, Stephen: >> >> I fully concur with your characterization of the context of what is being >> attempted with the categorization of a particular post as being "Peircian" >> or not; or of "things Peircian" or not.. >> >> From my view, the richness of the mind / writings of CSP are so vast and >> far-flung and so historical contextualized that is any claim to being a >> "Peircian post" or a "non-Peircian post" is a priori problematic as a >> consequence of the century past. Such claims by the "less than humble" >> contributors bring to my mind the images of single-minded political groups, >> such as the metaphors cast into the public political discourse by the Tea >> Party. This is one of the more onerous aspects of category theory within >> the grammar of natural language. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> On May 31, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >> >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
