Scholarship thrives on saying what others thought. Thought thrives on resonating with the thinking of others and making such thoughts one's own with emendations, additions and meldings. The operative problem is that of the parson and the parishioner. Nice sermon, Reverend. Oh, what in particular? Rarely is what someone infers exactly what another meant. Often it is entirely disconnected, Not only that. We send messages all the time that are buried in other messages. We play what Wittgenstein called word games. The Bard understood that. And so do we. In this situation, I think the problem is less learning what we do not want to acknowledge as admitting the fragility of faith in anything. Which is a swift way to be reminded that we live in the now, not back then.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, > > On the nachlass of Peirce, just see the timelapse in publishing his latest > works. It just may be that his latest conclusions are met with some > uneasyness by those publishing it. - About Nietzche I do not know. > > CSP was and remained critical towards his own earlier work. To the end of > his days. > > When people start to defend - at any costs - their earlier achievements, > the ground they stand on, true philosophy gets cast aside. > > CSP once wrote: people tend to make exceptions for their own selves. That > is: fail to use a systematic method to find out what they do not like to > find out. > > Kirsti > > Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 11.2.2017 17:58: > >> This is a wonderful account. My relationship to Wittgenstein is >> something I have spoken of in my 'homage' to his Tractatus. Needless >> to say everything in your note resonates. I am glad my little note >> evoked it! I suspect the excluded math part took into brilliant >> territory conclusions related to improbability and uncertainty and >> ultimate order and possibly ethics and aesthetics. I wonder if there >> is a similar effort to redeem the nachloss as in the cases of >> Nietzsche and Peirce. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:32 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Stephen, >>> >>> In teh main, I agree. But I do not think they, either one, were in >>> any way "voting FOR" anything, not for religion or anything any >>> individual may choose. They were both making systematic observations >>> on truth & the methodical ways of approaching a true understanding >>> of what is real. >>> >>> It was in his early work (Tractatus) that Wittgenstein came into >>> the conclusion that what cannot be said, is best left unsaid. Left >>> into silence to convey. - Wittgenstein really did not write >>> philosophy for years and years to come. - But then he started to >>> write philosphical notes again. Published in the form of >>> Philosphische Untersuchungen - Philosphical Investigations. >>> >>> I find it most important that it was published as a bi-lingual >>> edition, both in German and in English. He expressed his ideas in >>> two languages. Both he was fluent with. >>> >>> I have discussed on the experience of meeting Wittgenstein in his >>> lectures with a cousin of G.H. von Wright, the editor and publisher >>> of Wittgensteins work, Johan von Wright. (I used to work with him). >>> >>> He described the experience of attending Wittgenstein's lecture a >>> highly awesome experience. The moment he entered the room was as if >>> the whole atmosphere were electrified in a second. >>> >>> I have met Georg von Wright many times and discussed with him, too. >>> He kept up close contact with students while he was a professor at >>> the department of philosphy at Helsinki University. He was a figure >>> with authority by just being present. But not comparable with >>> Wittgenstein. - I lost many opportunities to discussions with him on >>> Wittgenstein. To my deep regret later on. >>> >>> But Georg von Wright and Anscombe, who were left with the legacy of >>> Wittgenstein, that is to publish OR leave unpublished his writings, >>> chose not to publish everything. >>> >>> What was left out, were essential notes (in my judgement) in the >>> philosphy of mathematics these two decided that "the time" is not >>> ready for bringing out all. >>> >>> So, what we now have available has been deliberately cut down. The >>> most radical conclusions (on math) have been omitted. >>> >>> How come Wittgenstein's latest conclusions on mathematics was so >>> important to cut out? What could have been so dangerous? >>> >>> This is a question I wish to pose to list members. >>> >>> Especially to Jerry and John. >>> >>> Best, Kirsti >>> >>> Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 5.2.2017 22:26: >>> >>> 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 [1] [1] >>>> >>>> Links: >>>> ------ >>>> [1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] >>>> >>> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://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 .
