Steven - I have a few questions: 1) You wrote: "religion as science or science as religion". With this rejection of the differentiation between religion and science - how do you define this new approach? My understanding of religion is that it rests on a priori axioms that are outside of the realm of objective experience and empirical proof. My understanding of science is that its axioms are fallible, and must rest on objective experience and empirical proof. How do you deal with this conflict?
2) You wrote: "religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot look upon the world without their consideration. But this is, in my view, a weak description, for it does not define the source of the validity of this 'set of ideas'. After all, the idea that the sun goes around the earth, the idea that disease is caused by the anger of the recently dead - may indeed be religious ideas, and are claimed as valid by 'the Will of God' but can they also be scientific? 3) You wrote: "universal will. I have taken this to imply, in modern terms, that we must scientifically consider the biophysics of sensation and response." I find this an odd definition of 'universal will' - i.e., the biophysics of sensation and response. What do these two kinetic and mechanical forces (in Firstness and Secondness) have to do with Universal Will which would have to include some element of a force beyond kinetics? 4) You wrote: "We must view science as "reading the mind of God" where "God" means no more or less than whatever this full science offers". Again, to equate 'mind' with 'whatever this full science offers' is a circular and ambiguous definition. This 'full science' which seems to me from your definitions, to be focused around mechanical forces doesn't seem to have a thing to do with 'Mind'. Or have you defined Mind as mechanics? Your tactic of defining something, eg, God, as X (as full science) doesn't validate either science or the notion of God; it's a circular and thus fallacious argument. 5) Then, your rather ad hominem argument for rejecting Charles Peirce's view, is, by definition, invalid. You wrote: "It seems reasonable to argue that Charles lacked the religious and scientific sophistication of his brother and father. He certainly appears to lack the same deep sensitivity." This is a conclusion without your providing any reasons. Reasonable to whom? And what are those reasons? So far, your above argument doesn't provide any such evidence. And 'religious and scientific sophistication' and 'lacks the same deep sensitivity' are open and thus empty assertions - for they also lack evidence. 6) You wrote: "I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for spontaneity and evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in dispute, but I am happy to listen to arguments" The above seems to include your definition of science, one of its axioms being a rejection of sponteneity and evolution of laws. As has been pointed out before, this suggests that your view of 'science' accepts a deterministic, necessitarian and mechanical view of the world. This seems to me at least, to be a rejection of Universal Will. And again, since your definition of science (and you provide us with several - and not all are equivalent) excludes spontaneity and evolution, then, it is beyond argumentation. It is, not a fact, but a dogma for you. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith To: Jerry LR Chandler Cc: Peirce List ; Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A System Of Analytic Mechanics Thank you for these comments Jerry. When I first came upon these works, they also answered many questions for me. Of particular note is the strong undercurrent of what would later be known as positivism, written at the time of Comte and in full awareness of Comte's ideas. Yet they, Benjamin and James, by putting science first, and in a more forgiving context perhaps than Comte, did not bring on the Existential crisis but rather they re-conceived of religion as science or science as religion. I argue that this is a unique circumstance in the United States where the reconnection of religion was already underway (although this movement seems to have reversed during the twentieth century). If we accept religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot look upon the world without their consideration, then we begin to understand the approach. Benjamin, in his "Ideality of the physical sciences" goes to some length to argue that science must consider the whole. It is he, in this text, that first argues that science must not merely consider the easy. He intended this to mean that we must consider the notion of universal will. I have taken this to imply, in modern terms, that we must scientifically consider the biophysics of sensation and response. I will accept challenges on this point because I understand that this may come over as self-serving. I will note that there is more to be said on this point in the light of the disruption of logical incompleteness. It seems reasonable to argue that Charles lacked the religious and scientific sophistication of his brother and father. He certainly appears to lack the same deep sensitivity. We may also note that in his Neglected Argument he echoes his semeiotic triad in the context of the family's beliefs. He is echoing his father's view of "God" and creation in Neglected Argument. The "neglect" I now assume is, in fact, the neglect of his father's argument. No scholar should consider my remarks to be "against" Charles. I accept that we may differ in scholarly interpretations but I do not accept that we may deny the facts. I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for spontaneity and evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in dispute, but I am happy to listen to arguments. Regards, Steven On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Steven, List: Thank you for posting these files prepared by CSP's brother and father. These files very definitely add support to your assertions concerning the familial logic entailments that are often reflected in CSP texts. It is most unfortunate that logicians and philosophers fail to consider or even acknowledge the magnitude of these familial entailments on CSP's texts. These entailments are readily apparent from a chemist's perspective. Perhaps I will comment a bit on these these texts at a later time after I have digested them a bit further. Cheers Jerry On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: I am posting these files to enable the wider Peirce community to appreciate the environment and influences upon Charles. This is also an OCR'd searchable version of A System Of Analytic Mechanics - a treatise by Charles' father, Benjamin Peirce, and taught at Harvard. Prepared by me in the past few years. You will note in this text many of the ideas that you have come to attribute to Charles and you will note, while Peirce does not use the term "covariance" that this is precisely what he describes, anticipating Einstein's claims for the epistemic power of general covariance. The context of the work is Newtonian mechanics and recall that Peirce spent a good deal of time with the Celestial Mechanics of LaPlace, playing a major role in the translation by his mentor Nathaniel Bowditch. Benjamin Peirce - 1855 - A System Of Analytic Mechanics.pdf Regards, Steven ----------------------------- 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 .
