2 minds single thought very close to a higher love amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
