Jon, Helmut, It is advisable, I think, to take this discussion to another thread with another Subject, *if* it is indeed possible to relate it to matters Peircean or pragmatic. Otherwise, it would probably be best to take it off list (as interesting a discussion as it may prove to be).
Best, Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator) [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > It sounds like you may have it backwards. While Christianity has had to > fight against various forms of gnosticism throughout its history, the New > Testament itself strongly advocates respect for the body, which is > precisely why it condemns sexual immorality. For example ... > > “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All > things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food > is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy > both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but > for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will > also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members > of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of > a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a > prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will > become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with > him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is > outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own > body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit > within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were > bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-20) > > > Also, *The Scarlet Letter* is a *fictional* novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne > about a woman in mid-17th-century Massachusetts who was required by the > local Puritans to wear a red "A" on her dress because she had a child with > a man who was not her husband. The big revelation at the end is that the > father is the church's pastor, so the whole point of the story is the > hypocrisy of it all. > > Finally, Enoch is another person who was "translated" according to the Old > Testament--he "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him" (Genesis > 5:24)--which is presumably why Peirce often used his name in illustrative > syllogisms about the mortality of all men. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> List, >> sorry for the off-topic-ness of this, but at this point I am wondering >> quite muchly, why these anti-body-dogmatists, who disrespect the human body >> and its urges so much (I had read something about a red letter "A" for >> adultery embroidered by a woman on her dress to be worn all her life, just >> because she has had a rudimentary sex life after her husband had left her), >> I mean, these rigid protestants, pietists, maybe catholics too, why ever do >> they want to take their so disgusting *body* with them when they go to >> heaven? >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> 30. November 2017 um 14:19 Uhr >> *Von:* [email protected] >> >> >> List, >> >> >> >> For those unfamiliar with Biblical language, “translated” in this context >> means “taken up to heaven bodily” (which happened to the prophet Elijah in >> that universe). An interesting choice to show how lines of identity work >> inside a cut. But some example like this is necessary to “unpack” Peirce’s >> opening sentence here, “The more you scribe on the bottom of a cut, the >> less you assert.” This is very important in the interpretation of beta >> graphs. >> >> >> >> In the example where a single line of identity connects the two rhemes, >> Peirce reads it as “Either nobody is translated or if anybody is >> translated, that person does not return to earth.” But strictly speaking, >> it could also be read the other way round: “Either nobody returns to earth, >> or if anybody does, that person is not translated.” We don’t read it that >> way because we take for granted a temporal order that prevents anybody >> “returning” from a place where they haven’t gone. This is an example of how >> semantics can affect our reading of system meant to be purely formal (i.e. >> all syntax, no semantics). >> >> >> >> In the last two diagrams, lines of identity are permitted to extend *to* >> the cut from outside and inside. But why can’t we simply have one line of >> identity that *crosses* the cut to join the spot inside with the spot >> outside? This question — which is, if you’ll pardon the expression, >> *crucial* in the development of EGs — will be addressed in 2.17. >> >> >> >> Gary f. >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
