Peirce is said to be a superficial and less than apt theologian. Not one of the things he is cited for. I think he and Wittgenstein are peas in a pod right down to their common reliance on, and iconoclasm toward, the natural sciences. It was Wittgenstein who noted the difficulty of dealing with what I have for years called the realm of mystery and supposition.He called it nonsense in a positive way. And I agree with those who say his reason was to protect ethics and religion.
As one with theological training who has gone far toward reconstructing a theology outside the camp, there being no antidote to banishment for career decisions such as fighting for reparations in the 60s and favoring Saul Alinsky, I think Peirce has made THE fundamental contribution needed not only for religion but for the world generally. That is triadic thinking understood as a means of making the unspeakable sayable and normative. I have had no access to circles within the Peirce community and have been excluded and skewered by some for whatever reason. But I do want to make this point about Peirce and Wittgenstein. Though neither man was a theologian, together they are the future of any universal and nonviolent and ethically advanced religious thinking. The simplest way to say this is to say that binary thinking in any form when applied to Wittgenstein's unsayable is anathema to progress while triadic thinking is the key to progress. amazon.com/author/stephenrose
----------------------------- 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 .
