I don't agree with your reading Ben. I think you are seeing things that are not there, perhaps they come from the color of Peirce's 19th century language.
He was very careful, it seems to me, to say things with an underlying consistency of thought. For him to suggest "after life" as it might be commonly interpreted in the spiritualistic sense would be an alarming break with his thought at the time and contradict what he says elsewhere. The "lively spiritual consciousness" he refers to is the one that is present but unappreciated, revealed in its true nature, he suggests, with the death of carnal consciousness. The subsequent form of the continuing universal basis of mind, he says, is nothing we can imagine. In particular, he is not suggesting any propagation of the "personal spirit." In my terms the death of an organism is like a dissolution as the structure that characterized the sense of that individual transforms under the laws of thermodynamics toward the inevitable equilibrium/balance. New structures arise from the environment to form new individuals. What concerned both Benjamin Peirce and Charles, was the nature of this universal basis of mind. Benjamin wanted to place it as a general notion of "will" that moved all things - and I am inclined to believe that this was the basis of Charles' thinking in these matters. So this view isn't something that he came to on his own. He had this notion from his father, so very early on, and both attached to this idea the conception of "God" - a conception of "God" that Charles later tries to explain in his writings. With respect, Steven On Aug 10, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > Gary F., Stephen, > > After this I promise to try to focus my attention on the slow read discussion > that Gary Richmond is leading. The first section of Joe's paper had my mind > running in so many direction that I fell off the track. > > * * * > > I agree that there's plenty of continuity in the 1893 paper with Peirce's > later views, the idea of one's living on in others. Still, he says: "we > shall at once perceive that we have had all along a lively spiritual > consciousness which we have been confusing with something different" > > Gary is right to note the "we" - in the 1893 article Peirce speaks of what > "we" shall perceive after carnal death - a plural that's consistent with the > idea of a collective consiousness. Indeed there he discusses the falsity of > absolute divisions between onself and others. > > A lively spiritual consciousness is still a _lively consciousness_, whether > it's we together or you and I separately who experience it. And it's a > _lively consciousness_ that we _perceptually_ distinguish from other forms of > consiousness _after we die_, according to Peirce. Now it's very hard to take > "lively consciousness" in a sense much weaker than "waking consciousness." > And it's one given to quick reflexive perceptions. Anyway, he doesn't predict > things like that later in 1906. > > As regards immortality, Peirce said in the 1893 article, in the paragraph > before the one discussed above, "A man is capable of a spiritual > consciousness, which constitutes him one of the eternal verities, which is > embodied in the universe as a whole. This as an archetypal idea can never > fail; and in the world to come is destined to a special spiritual embodiment." > > Steven seems to me to be right that the objective-idealist Peirce is > referring to a necessary universal basis of mind. At the same time, Peirce > has it (in 1893) that a person's spiritual consciousness constitutes him > _one_ of the eternal verities (at any rate, not _all_ of the eternal > verities), an archetypal idea that "can never fail" (is immortal) and "in the > world to come" - that's an afterlife phrase if I ever heard one, a person > doesn't use that phase except in reference to an afterlife in a whole > afterlife world (especially when writing for The Open Court pubisher) - "is > destined to a special spiritual embodiment" - not an _individual_ spiritual > embodiment, but he also didn't say a _universal_ spiritual embodiment. > "Special" is another of those words that Peirce tended to use thoughtfully. > Spiritual person --> eternal verity --> infallible archetypal idea --> > special spiritual embodiment in the world to come. So he's suggesting an > afterlife of collective consciousness that is still distinguished somehow > into kinds though not sundered into individuals. I agree that it's not clear > that in 1893 Peirce thought that after death the consciousness would remain > lively for all eternity. > > Best, Ben > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Fuhrman" > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:39 AM > Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Slow Read: "Teleology and the Autonomy of the > Semiosis Process" > > I agree with Stephen. In the 1893 piece, Peirce says nothing about the > immortality *of the soul*, where "soul" would mean the spiritual > consciousness *of an individual* person. The very idea of a completely > *separate* spiritual identity is "the metaphysics of wickedness", an illusion > which vanishes at death, when "we shall at once perceive that we have had all > along a lively spiritual consciousness which we have been confusing with > something different" -- emphasis on the "we" (not as plurality but as the > "continuity of being"). > > Gary F. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Sent: August-10-11 1:46 AM > > Not wishing to be contrarian Ben, but it seems to me that in the early > passages you cite Peirce holds a view not dissimilar from his later view. In > the whole of his "Science and Immortality" piece of 1887 he is as skeptical > as he is later. Only on a superficial reading could one conclude otherwise. > What he alludes to I believe is his belief in a necessary universal basis of > mind and the "spiritual consciousness" to which he refers is the non-carnal > embodied state in which the universal is manifest. > > With respect, > Steven > > On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > > Gary F., Stephen, Steven, > > > > In "Immortality in the Light of Synechism" (1893, retitled "Immortality and > > Synechism" by the CP editors), Peirce says. > > CP 7.576. Nor is this, by any means, all. A man is capable of a spiritual > > consciousness, which constitutes him one of the eternal verities, which is > > embodied in the universe as a whole. This as an archetypal idea can never > > fail; and in the world to come is destined to a special spiritual > > embodiment. > > > > CP 7.577 [....] In the same manner, when the carnal consciousness passes > > away in death, we shall at once perceive that we have had all along a > > lively spiritual consciousness which we have been confusing with something > > different. > > But it's clear as all of you point out, that in 1906 (in CP 6.520-21), > > Peirce was much less sure about immortality. > > > > 1887 - contributes a chapter > > http://books.google.com/books?id=V9wPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69 to a symposium on > > "Science and Immortality". Doubtful about immortality. CP 6.548-56. > > 1893 - "Immortality in the Light of Synechism," immortality & survival > > after carnal death. CP 7.565-78, EP 2:1-3 > > 1906 - "Immortality" (in "Answers to Questions concerning My Belief in > > God") - Not sure about immortality or life after death "content to be in > > God's hands" CP 6.519-21. > > > > Best, Ben > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of > the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
