Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:17:55 -0700

Dear Stephen, Stephen, List,
Stephen C. Rose, I like your poem very much. I think, that "The heart is new" means, that it is reconnected to something very old, namely to a universal principle, like the term "religion" means reconnection. It is also "new", because it (the new heart) newly is letting go of some cultural rules or habits- which may be old too, but not as old as the universal principles. These universal principles, eg. justness, may be classified as divine, if and because it is not possible to identify them as habits (like cultural habits), so they seem to be installed (or have been "a priori" for some other reason) from the very beginning. I tentatively identify them with (mathematical) axioms, such as transitivity, symmetry, and so on. Stephen Jarosek, I think, that karma is based on universal principles too, in this case derived from the axiom transitivity, because "karma" is often explained as "law of cause and effect" in Buddhism. And I think, that deduction and efficient cause is based on transitivity. So I do not completely agree to your identification of karma with culture, because culture is mostly meant like habits, and not like something universal- though of course, I think, that there must be some universal principle too in culture, eg. in the nature of communication. Well, the term culture in this context is difficult, because it is more often used to distinguish, not to find similarities between ways of communication in groups of people.
Cheers, Helmut
 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. April 2015 um 17:47 Uhr
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
An: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
Cc: "Peirce List" <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim
Hi Stephen...I think you're better schooled than I on these connections. I think Peirce is relevant universally without being explicitly tied to anything. When he gets tied it seems folk get involved in telling others what Peirce meant by this and that. I can imagine what this might be like to him. I suspect that for all his desire for recognition he saw a downside to it. Claiming Peirce or even claiming to represent his thought -- well claiming anyone is a problem. I go by his own skepticism about the durability of the individual when assumed to be the be and end all. I like the notions of the East but at the same time I like the lost elements of Christianity, the ones that got wrung out when creeds became necessary to regulate gnostic misbehavior and such. The future lies I think with nonviolence, continuity and fallibility. Peirce got two out of three. As far as semiotics goes I do not have understanding of it. I think it has to do with the fact that more than language is involved with communication which is obvious. I think maybe your perspective is a good pretension buster. Cheers, S 
   
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Stephen, I have been doing some research recently on Buddhism... while I have always respected Buddhism as rational and sensible, as I review it from a Peircean angle, it occurs to me that we would do well to try to reframe Peirce’s semiotics from a Buddhist perspective or explore Buddhism from a Peircean perspective. Consider the implications for pragmatism and the relationship between personality and culture... for example, karma as an embodiment of that relationship... or “dukkha” with respect to “unsatisfactoriness”, neediness, grasping, etc. Desire, association and habituation, it’s all there, the three Peircean categories play out in Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism, there is so much to feast on for semioticians. Consider further, that where traditional Christianity is anthropocentric, Buddhism is consistent with biosemiotic principles. In Buddhism, there is no anthropocentric devil... but there is karma (culture) as nature’s way of exacting reward or punishment, heaven or hell. sj

 

From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

 

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce

 

What is the pragmatic maxim but

the statement that by our fruits

we are known

 

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what

Peirce insisted was the means of

knowing things

called scientific method

 

How so

 

By showing the utility of sharing

and measuring the results

down to the last scrap

 

By synching his will to the

will of the sick

and achieving measurable results

 

But Jesus went beyond

straight to the heart

for he knew that

for change to come

the heart must be made new

as his was on the mountain

when he refused

the wiles of Satan

and thereby abolished Satan's rule

 

The heart is new when

it rejects authority

 

The heart is new when 

it rejects religious show

and mumbo jumbo

 

The heart is new when

it can see past hypocrisy

 

The heart is new when

it can say

no matter what I do 

I shall fail

 

Because the contract

involves all hearts

 

And too many hearts

remain unchanged

 

+

 

The game is not yet over

 

But at least it was defined

more than 2000 years ago

 

 

----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Reply via email to