Thank you Stephen!
The following shows a fine understanding of the deep contextuality of
meaning.
Stephen Rose: "Which is a swift way to be reminded that we live in the
now, not back then."
This is something very hard to understand. So true, so true...
Kirsti
Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 11.2.2017 21:00:
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 [1]
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] [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] [1]
Links:
------
[1] http://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 .
