Dear Edwina and Stephen
I do not see any fundamental disagreement between you.
Cheers
Søren
Fra: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 2. juni 2014 17:18
Til: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List; Phyllis Chiasson
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science and
religion: text 1
Heh - so, do you disagree with my view that:
"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."
Peirce set up a triadic infrastructure, one where ALL three modalities
function. Therefore, our lives should not be focused in attempting to sublimate
one to privilege another (i.e., to deny Secondness and somehow achieve direct
contact with Thirdness...or even vice versa). That is, to me, an act of
'hubris', but to acknowledge our existential reality as a triadic function in
ourselves - operating within three networked modalities.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler<mailto:[email protected]> ; Peirce
List<mailto:[email protected]> ; Phyllis
Chiasson<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science and
religion: text 1
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]<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler<mailto:[email protected]> ; Peirce
List<mailto:[email protected]> ; Phyllis
Chiasson<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Jerry LR Chandler<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Peirce List<mailto:[email protected]> ; Phyllis
Chiasson<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Stephen,
I don't understand your post.
Phyllis
"Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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 .
