Dear Stev(ph)en and list
About the meaning of spirituality. I am presently reading Basarab Nicolescu
(2014): From modernity to Cosmodernity: Science, Culture and Spirituality
On p. 13 here expressed the transcultural experience of reality in a very
eloquent way, that I find very close to Peirce pure Zero or Tohu va Bohu and
Nargajuna's emptiness from which all things co-arise:
"The perception of the transcultural is, first of all, an experience, because
it concerns the silence of different actualizations. The space between the
levels of reality is the space of this silence. It is the equivalent, in
interior space, of what is called the quantum vacuum in exterior space. It is a
full silence, structured in levels. There are as many levels of silences as
there are correlations between levels of perception and levels of reality. And
beyond all these levels of silence, there is another quality of silence, that
place-without-place that the poet Michel Casmus calls "our luminous ignorance".
This nucleus of silence appears to us as an unknowable because it is the
unfathomable well of knowledge, but this unknowable is luminous because it
illuminates the very structure of knowledge. The levels of silence and the
levels of our luminous ignorance determine our lucidity."
Best
Søren
Fra: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 1. juni 2014 20:16
Til: Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Cc: [email protected]
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science and
religion: text 1
Steven - Hope your hospital stay has good results.
It's funny to think of my resonance with Peirce in light of the fact of my
seminary training and lifelong work as both a representative and critic of the
church. I see little or no distinction between Peirce's thinking as a whole and
his thinking that explicitly relates to theology and religion. To make this
distinction sets him up for the charges you levy. I am not sure on what basis
your general observations on the relative spiritualities within the Peirce
family rest, but I tend to take them as less than substantiated by evidence. I
could be wrong. But I have studies some in the areas of American and English
universalism and its morphing into the less interesting (to me) and more
predictable unitarianism. I think CSP may have more affinity with the earliest
universalists and that these have some odd but not insignificant ties to some
views of the late Karl Barth and even to Paul. CSP reserves great acidity for
what he regards as a failing of John, the assumed author of the Fourth Gospel,
and perhaps also of the Book of Revelation. I think Peirce is foundational in
any discussion of holism, moving past Snow, and getting to some understanding
of Christianity past the fundamentalist culture religion that has largely
supplanted both neo-orthodoxy and liberalism. Best, S
@stephencrose<https://twitter.com/stephencrose>
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[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]<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 .
