List, I've been following this discussion as well as I can while staying with a 3 yr old. There are surely posts I've missed. In any case, I am wondering what you think about the big difference between what Peirce personally believed might be so and the slice he could represent in a proposition (NA). There is to my mind nothing esoteric in NA. It is a straightforward proposition of value that can, nevertheless, be verified by results. I think that, besides its heuristic value in demonstrating abduction/retroduction, the NA is an example of how value theory ought to be approached and verified. Peirce's ethical classes of motives provide an excellent tool for thinking about cause/effect of various hierarchies of value-driven choices, which all choices ultimately are. If NA expresses the logic of retroduction, I contend that retroduction must then be the logic of value.
Regards, Phyllis.marie.chiasson@gmail Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear Soren, > >If the question is how can we make any kind of sense of the human >condition, which is what I take you to refer to when you speak of >"spirituality" then I believe that we must put Charles aside and focus >instead upon the efforts of others, including his father and brother (Royce >and James, etc..). > >Steven > > >On Monday, June 2, 2014, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] >> *Sendt:* 1. juni 2014 20:16 >> *Til:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]> >> 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]> 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 >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
