Let us agree to disagree lest we get into a dualistic warp. I do disagree with every fiber of my odd being. Cheers, S
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen - that's a vague answer; 'it must be seen for what it is'. Well, > anything must be seen in that way. > > I said that Thirdness is a reality but it is NOT existential and can never > become so. Generalities are not existential. There's quite a difference > between the two; the real and the existential. Pure Form (which I deny > 'exists') can never become actualized but must remain potential. Basic > Godel's law. > > Furthermore, I reject that 'dualism' is a 'barrier' to the achievement of > agapasism. We live within Secondness and cannot even access Thirdness > without such contact. There can be no pure Thirdness within existential > space and time, i.e., within existence. To believe that it can 'exist' is > the mindset of utopianism and fundamentalist essentialism. And, in my view, > dangerous - after all, we see that in all fundamentalism, whether it be > fascist or communisst or in our modern world, in fundamentalist Islam > whose rhetoric is also IF ONLY ALL - THEN PERFECTION. > > As existential beings, we are finite and thus, existent within Secondness > - and I think we should acknowledge the limitations of such an existence. > And as finite within the differentiations of Secondness, we also have to > aknowledge that these differentiations function within the generalizations > and evolving commonalities of Thirdness. BUT - at no time can one or the > other become supreme; it's a constant entangled networked relationship > between the two modalities. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> ; Peirce List > <[email protected]> ; Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 10:12 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, > science and religion: text 1 > > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
