Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-31 Thread Benjamin Udell 

Kirsti, John FS, list,

Generally, concerns about appropriateness of others' messages should be 
addressed off-list to the manager and moderator Gary Richmond, and 
Kirsti may have already attempted that. Unfortunately, Gary is traveling 
and won't be back online till the second week of January.  For what it's 
worth, it seems to me (the co-manager) that the current discussion has 
not yet departed too far and too long from Peirce-related issues.  I'd 
suggest that people not get into an argument about the matter at the 
present time, and that they refresh their memories of pertinent sections 
of list founder Joseph Ransdell's discussion "How the Forum Works".


*What is relevant to post and discuss here?*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#relevance

   Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is
   primarily a place rather than a discussion group, people contribute
   or not as they think best, and come and go freely, as is taken for
   granted in public forums wherever they occur. There is no standing
   agenda except the promotion of philosophical conversation of the
   sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in
   Peirce and of other communication in support of that. Thus
   discussion should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce,
   and the working test for relevance would simply be a plausible
   explanation of why the topic in question should be under discussion
   on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", given
   that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite
   expectations about subject-matter in mind.
   [End quote]

*Caveat about correcting others*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#correction-caveat

   It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently
   pursued: philosophy is understood here to be essentially a
   critically directed and self-controlled conversation. But there is
   one important caveat in this connection: If you feel that some
   messages being posted are not to the purpose of the list or that
   there is something someone is doing which should be discouraged, do
   NOT attempt to rectify that yourself by posting a message to that
   effect to the list in general. Because there is so little overt or
   formal moderation by the list manager, it is natural to suppose that
   the individual members can and should take that role as needed. But
   this rarely if ever produces the effect intended, regardless of how
   reasonable it may seem at a particular time. Contact me instead
   off-list and we will see what can or should be done, if anything,
   without generating a chain reaction of protests and
   counter-protests, which are the typical result of attempting to
   rectify the problem on-list.
   [End quote]

*Why the list manager should do the correcting*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#manager-corrects

   Should you contact the person yourself first, off-list, in an
   attempt to rectify their way of participating rather than bothering
   me with it? Although you do of course have a right—professional,
   moral, legal, whatever—to do this, and it may seem best to you, let
   me urge you to contact me first, nonetheless, unless there is some
   truly special and urgent reason to the contrary. There are several
   reasons for this:
   [ End quote]

Best, Ben

On 12/31/2016 11:20 AM, John F Sowa wrote:

On 12/31/2016 10:43 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does
CSP only serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of
ideas loosely connected with CSP?


Those are good questions.

I believe that it's important to relate CSP's writings to
critical issues today -- along the lines that he might have
done it he had access to the latest news and discoveries.

But it's always important to be quote, cite, or summarize
what Peirce actually wrote and to make the implicit connections
explicit.

John



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-31 Thread John F Sowa 

On 12/31/2016 10:43 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does
CSP only serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of
ideas loosely connected with CSP?


Those are good questions.

I believe that it's important to relate CSP's writings to
critical issues today -- along the lines that he might have
done it he had access to the latest news and discoveries.

But it's always important to be quote, cite, or summarize
what Peirce actually wrote and to make the implicit connections
explicit.

John


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-31 Thread kirstima 
Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does CSP only 
serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of ideas loosely 
connected with CSP. The list-minders should set an example. - It does no 
seem so to me.


Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 29.12.2016 21:52:

Clark, List,
I think, maybe the concept of Christ is (btw) an attempt to solve the
almightiness-paradoxon (Can God create a rock He cannot move), by
introducing Himself in the role of a person who is not almighty, even
got killed by the Romans. The cost of this solution is to give up the
concept of identity in favour of a concept of tri-identity or trinity:
Quite Peircean 2000 years ago. Tragically, later the "Christians" have
blamed not the Romans, but the Jews for this killing. But
crucification was a Roman, not a Jewish kind of death penalty (the
Jews would have stoned). Btw, I have read, that the story of Jesus is
somehow a copy of the Egyptian story of Isis, or was it Osiris. Like
the story about Luther has ocurred about 160 years ago in England: A
Mr. Wycliff did the same, pinned reformatory theses to a church door,
translated the Bible, and had an uprising of farmers in his wake, same
as later Luther, just plagiating all that, but with bigger effect due
to pamphlet printing possibility then, more dead farmers, and he was
antisemitic, and I wonder why he still well regarded.
Best,
Helmut

 29. Dezember 2016 um 19:05 Uhr
 "Clark Goble" 


On Dec 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien 
wrote:
Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the
nonexistence of God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon:
If God is all-knowing, then He knows the future too, but then He is
not almighty, because knowing it, He cannot change it. I think, this
is a poor argument, because it suggests, that for God time is, like
for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. And, that a paradoxon is a
refutation. I guess both are not so: God might have a lot of more
access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand close to at
all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and if
not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely
understood by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable
part of reality instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway,
hope You have had a merry christmas (not knowing the nature of time,
I cannot exclude the nonfutility of this wish), and happy new year!


Most of the New Atheist arguments against God are pretty embarrassing
as they just aren't that familiar with the literature. They are on
stronger ground when attacking an interventionist quasi-personal God
such as is common in theism - although even there the history of the
big three religions offer more choices than they typically admit.

The main problem with the three classic "omnis" are well known. Often
though there are hidden assumptions going on in terms of how to
understand the semantics of these terms. Process theologians often
play with this a lot. You can see this for instance in disputes over
whether God is impassible or not. The traditional reading is to take
God as an unmoved mover ala Aristotle whereas process theologians
often portray him as the most moved mover. In both cases we have a
kind of "highest" property but the assumptions about what omnipotence
entails are radically different.

To the paradox, the classic way it's solve is simply to say whatever
God is, he's logically consistent. So the paradox simply defines a
non-obtainable state which God need not have power to achieve. The
classic "can God create a rock he can't move" is really the same
argument.

That said I tend to think there are some inherent conflicts with God
as all knowing and all powerful. But it appears not in terms of God
proper but in terms of God as embodied in a mortal body. That's not an
issue for Jews or Muslims but it certainly is for Christians. So to my
eyes the biggest weaknesses are usually in the theology of the two
natures in Christ. However it also seems the case that Jesus is
ironically the fastest thing to get jesttisoned by philosophers who
think through the class Greek inspired properties. i.e. the omnis
classically understood. At that point though it's worth asking if they
are still Christian in their thought.

We discussed that relative to Peirce a few months ago. I'm still not
sure what Peirce thought of Christ but I assume that (as was common in
the late 19th century and early 20th century liberal theology) he
tended to not take Jesus too seriously. At least in terms of the
traditional theology.

To your broader point though there is a strong tradition that sees
aporias as inherent to the universe. I'm not sure how Peirce sees
that. It seems to me to be a strong philosophical tradition going back
to Aristotle and arguably Plato's early dialogs.
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Jerry Rhee 
Dear list:



Ha, what a great statement!

 “ In any case, my religious tradition does not call itself "Lutheran"
because of the man's politics.”



In like manner, we should ask ourselves,

For what reasons do we call ourselves Peirceans?



“Man is essentially a social animal: but to be social is one thing, to be
gregarious another:  I decline to serve as bellwether.”



Best,
Jerry R

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Frederik, List:
>
> FS:  Luther was anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science
> and founded theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
>
> Like most caricatures, there are elements of truth in this, along with a
> considerable amount of overstatement.
>
> FS:  His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
> apart from his politics, I do not know.
>
>
> I obviously think that it does.  In any case, my religious tradition does
> not call itself "Lutheran" because of the man's politics.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
> wrote:
>
>> As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and
>> effects, which are deplorable.
>>
>>
>>
>> His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
>> apart from his politics, I do not know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> F
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Stephen C. Rose" 
>> *Date: *Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
>> *To: *Frederik Stjernfelt 
>> *Cc: *John Sowa , "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <
>> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology
>>
>>
>>
>> Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
>> Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
>> merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
>> conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
>> Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
>> independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
>> is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
>> dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
>> in.
>>
>>
>> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peircers -
>>
>> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>>
>> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
>> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
>> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
>> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>>
>> Happy new year!
>> Frederik
>>
>>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt 
Frederik, List:

FS:  Luther was anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and
founded theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.


Like most caricatures, there are elements of truth in this, along with a
considerable amount of overstatement.

FS:  His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
apart from his politics, I do not know.


I obviously think that it does.  In any case, my religious tradition does
not call itself "Lutheran" because of the man's politics.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
wrote:

> As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and
> effects, which are deplorable.
>
>
>
> His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept apart
> from his politics, I do not know.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> F
>
>
>
> *From: *"Stephen C. Rose" 
> *Date: *Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
> *To: *Frederik Stjernfelt 
> *Cc: *John Sowa , "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <
> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology
>
>
>
> Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
> Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
> merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
> conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
> Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
> independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
> is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
> dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
> in.
>
>
> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Peircers -
>
> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>
> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
> Happy new year!
> Frederik
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Frederik Stjernfelt 
As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and effects, 
which are deplorable.

His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept apart from 
his politics, I do not know.

Best
F

From: "Stephen C. Rose" 
Date: Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
To: Frederik Stjernfelt 
Cc: John Sowa , "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" 

Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why Wittgenstein 
(who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have merited a Nobel over 
Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological conversation as I am in the 
midst of a consideration which harks back to Tillich's famous god beyond god 
remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather independent of the force that is the 
moving and still evolving cosmos which is what it is. In effect we play a part 
perhaps in inventing God due to our dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but 
it is why I have not weighed in.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
mailto:stj...@hum.aau.dk>> wrote:
Dear Peircers -

Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.

I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to the 
emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was anti-reason, 
anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded theocracies in the 
emerging Lutheran states.

Happy new year!
Frederik

On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa" mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> 
wrote:

>On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
>
>For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
>
>John



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send 
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Stephen C. Rose 
Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
in.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
wrote:

> Dear Peircers -
>
> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>
> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
> Happy new year!
> Frederik
>
> On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa"  wrote:
>
> >On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> >> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
> >
> >For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
> >
> >John
>
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Frederik Stjernfelt 
Dear Peircers - 

Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded. 

I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to the 
emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was anti-reason, 
anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded theocracies in the 
emerging Lutheran states. 

Happy new year!
Frederik

On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa"  wrote:

>On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
>
>For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
>
>John


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-30 Thread Clark Goble 

> On Dec 29, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> I think, maybe the concept of Christ is (btw) an attempt to solve the 
> almightiness-paradoxon (Can God create a rock He cannot move), by introducing 
> Himself in the role of a person who is not almighty, even got killed by the 
> Romans. The cost of this solution is to give up the concept of identity in 
> favour of a concept of tri-identity or trinity: Quite Peircean 2000 years 
> ago. Tragically, later the "Christians" have blamed not the Romans, but the 
> Jews for this killing.

Yes but the move to the person of Jesus causes far more problems for the more 
Greek absolutist conception of God. The problems of the traditional theologies 
of the two natures seem much more difficult than what they had before. Of 
course the reason for the theology isn’t how well they solve philosophical 
problems. 

> Btw, I have read, that the story of Jesus is somehow a copy of the Egyptian 
> story of Isis, or was it Osiris.

There are lots of patterns in religion and myth. The structuralists made hay 
with this at least through the middle of the 20th century. Some figures like 
Joseph Campbell continued to push it long after its theoretical underpinnings 
had become problematic.

> Like the story about Luther has ocurred about 160 years ago in England: A Mr. 
> Wycliff did the same, pinned reformatory theses to a church door, translated 
> the Bible, and had an uprising of farmers in his wake, same as later Luther, 
> just plagiating all that, but with bigger effect due to pamphlet printing 
> possibility then, more dead farmers, and he was antisemitic, and I wonder why 
> he still well regarded.

A few others mentioned Weber although I don’t think that’s necessarily correct. 
Certainly there’s a lot of people who think Weber completely wrong on the 
Protestant issue and that it’s one of these accidental correlations. Even if 
one gives Weber a bit more credit than many want to these days, there does seem 
a certain accidental component to it all tied up with what great powers 
happened to be ascendent the last 250 years. Would we view it the same way had 
Portugal, Spain and later France not screwed up their empires?



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-29 Thread John F Sowa 

On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.


For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-29 Thread Helmut Raulien 

Clark, List,

I think, maybe the concept of Christ is (btw) an attempt to solve the almightiness-paradoxon (Can God create a rock He cannot move), by introducing Himself in the role of a person who is not almighty, even got killed by the Romans. The cost of this solution is to give up the concept of identity in favour of a concept of tri-identity or trinity: Quite Peircean 2000 years ago. Tragically, later the "Christians" have blamed not the Romans, but the Jews for this killing. But crucification was a Roman, not a Jewish kind of death penalty (the Jews would have stoned). Btw, I have read, that the story of Jesus is somehow a copy of the Egyptian story of Isis, or was it Osiris. Like the story about Luther has ocurred about 160 years ago in England: A Mr. Wycliff did the same, pinned reformatory theses to a church door, translated the Bible, and had an uprising of farmers in his wake, same as later Luther, just plagiating all that, but with bigger effect due to pamphlet printing possibility then, more dead farmers, and he was antisemitic, and I wonder why he still well regarded.

Best,

Helmut

 

 29. Dezember 2016 um 19:05 Uhr
 "Clark Goble" 


On Dec 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
 

Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the nonexistence of God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon: If God is all-knowing, then He knows the future too, but then He is not almighty, because knowing it, He cannot change it. I think, this is a poor argument, because it suggests, that for God time is, like for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. And, that a paradoxon is a refutation. I guess both are not so: God might have a lot of more access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand close to at all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and if not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely understood by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable part of reality instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway, hope You have had a merry christmas (not knowing the nature of time, I cannot exclude the nonfutility of this wish), and happy new year!


 

Most of the New Atheist arguments against God are pretty embarrassing as they just aren’t that familiar with the literature. They are on stronger ground when attacking an interventionist quasi-personal God such as is common in theism - although even there the history of the big three religions offer more choices than they typically admit.

 

The main problem with the three classic “omnis” are well known. Often though there are hidden assumptions going on in terms of how to understand the semantics of these terms. Process theologians often play with this a lot. You can see this for instance in disputes over whether God is impassible or not. The traditional reading is to take God as an unmoved mover ala Aristotle whereas process theologians often portray him as the most moved mover. In both cases we have a kind of “highest” property but the assumptions about what omnipotence entails are radically different.

 

To the paradox, the classic way it’s solve is simply to say whatever God is, he’s logically consistent. So the paradox simply defines a non-obtainable state which God need not have power to achieve. The classic “can God create a rock he can’t move” is really the same argument.

 

That said I tend to think there are some inherent conflicts with God as all knowing and all powerful. But it appears not in terms of God proper but in terms of God as embodied in a mortal body. That’s not an issue for Jews or Muslims but it certainly is for Christians. So to my eyes the biggest weaknesses are usually in the theology of the two natures in Christ. However it also seems the case that Jesus is ironically the fastest thing to get jesttisoned by philosophers who think through the class Greek inspired properties. i.e. the omnis classically understood. At that point though it’s worth asking if they are still Christian in their thought.

 

We discussed that relative to Peirce a few months ago. I’m still not sure what Peirce thought of Christ but I assume that (as was common in the late 19th century and early 20th century liberal theology) he tended to not take Jesus too seriously. At least in terms of the traditional theology.

 

To your broader point though there is a strong tradition that sees aporias as inherent to the universe. I’m not sure how Peirce sees that. It seems to me to be a strong philosophical tradition going back to Aristotle and arguably Plato’s early dialogs.
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-29 Thread Clark Goble 

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Gary Richmond  wrote:
> 
> For many scholars, Peirce's metaphysics--perhaps especially his religious 
> metaphysics and what he sometimes referred to as his pre-scientific 
> cosmology--has been the most problematic aspect of his philosophy. 
> Personally, I have never found this to be the case and, indeed, I am quite 
> aligned with his thinking in those areas while, as I've noted here from time 
> to time, I arrived at my own not incongruent metaphysical and religious 
> positions long before I was exposed to Peirce's. 

This seems right, although I personally don’t have as much problem with his 
speculative cosmology. However it also seems to have the weakest arguments and 
in a few cases some problematic assumptions. (The cosmological origin of how 
secondness and thirdness develop don’t seem persuasive to me) The main issue to 
my eyes is that Peirce seems extremely fruitful in some areas. So it’s easier 
to push those ideas and arguments while making as few commitments to all of 
Peirce’s thought as possible. Especially when talking to a broader audience.

> Although Peirce once described his religious views as "buddheo-christian," I 
> am, for the very limited purposes of this argument, going to use a principle 
> of at least one school of Zen Buddhism as a foil to Christianity. I should 
> immediately note that I have great respect for Zen having studied apsects of 
> it for many years, and continue to find it to be one of the healthiest 
> psychologies ever invented or discovered (see Alan Watts, Psychotherapy East 
> and West, 1961). Zen is rich and complex, and my bouncing off this small 
> piece of it is nothing more than a rhetorical device I'm employing to make a 
> point.

I’ve read just enough to be dangerous. As a tangent what do you think of 
Kapleau’s Three Pillars of Zen? I enjoyed it when I read it years ago but don’t 
know how others perceive it or how well it actually represents Zen.

> But if this is a précis of that cosmology (while some scholars would no doubt 
> argue that it is not and so is misleading), then it is certainly very far 
> from Peirce's religious cosmology or that of Christianity more generally. As 
> Peirce and Christianity see it, God didn't merely 'appear' in the world to 
> then absolutely disengage from it (i.e., enter nirvana), but rather, He 
> continuously creates it, and eternally loves it. 

The idea of continual creation actually has a strong Jewish tradition. I don’t 
know if you’ve read it or not but Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of 
Evil goes through the earliest creation accounts. 

https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Persistence-Evil-Jon-Levenson/dp/0691029504/ref=sr_1_1
 


Levenson argues the earliest view (largely that from before Hellenization) was 
God continually holding back the waters of chaos by continual creation. 

A friend of mine writing more from the OOO perspective than the Peircean 
perspective has an interesting book that I think ends up being similar to 
Peirce’s. He comes at it primarily from the view of the philosopher of science 
Bruno Latour. But the idea is that grace more or less is this continual 
creation. It ends up being a very Buddhist like view. (He makes the Buddhist 
connection explicit in some of his other ritings.

https://www.amazon.com/Speculative-Grace-Object-Oriented-Perspectives-Continental/dp/0823251519/ref=sr_1_11
 






-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-29 Thread Clark Goble 

> On Dec 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the nonexistence of 
> God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon: If God is all-knowing, 
> then He knows the future too, but then He is not almighty, because knowing 
> it, He cannot change it. I think, this is a poor argument, because it 
> suggests, that for God time is, like for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. 
> And, that a paradoxon is a refutation. I guess both are not so: God might 
> have a lot of more access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand 
> close to at all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and 
> if not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely understood 
> by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable part of reality 
> instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway, hope You have had a merry 
> christmas (not knowing the nature of time, I cannot exclude the nonfutility 
> of this wish), and happy new year!

Most of the New Atheist arguments against God are pretty embarrassing as they 
just aren’t that familiar with the literature. They are on stronger ground when 
attacking an interventionist quasi-personal God such as is common in theism - 
although even there the history of the big three religions offer more choices 
than they typically admit.

The main problem with the three classic “omnis” are well known. Often though 
there are hidden assumptions going on in terms of how to understand the 
semantics of these terms. Process theologians often play with this a lot. You 
can see this for instance in disputes over whether God is impassible or not. 
The traditional reading is to take God as an unmoved mover ala Aristotle 
whereas process theologians often portray him as the most moved mover. In both 
cases we have a kind of “highest” property but the assumptions about what 
omnipotence entails are radically different.

To the paradox, the classic way it’s solve is simply to say whatever God is, 
he’s logically consistent. So the paradox simply defines a non-obtainable state 
which God need not have power to achieve. The classic “can God create a rock he 
can’t move” is really the same argument.

That said I tend to think there are some inherent conflicts with God as all 
knowing and all powerful. But it appears not in terms of God proper but in 
terms of God as embodied in a mortal body. That’s not an issue for Jews or 
Muslims but it certainly is for Christians. So to my eyes the biggest 
weaknesses are usually in the theology of the two natures in Christ. However it 
also seems the case that Jesus is ironically the fastest thing to get 
jesttisoned by philosophers who think through the class Greek inspired 
properties. i.e. the omnis classically understood. At that point though it’s 
worth asking if they are still Christian in their thought.

We discussed that relative to Peirce a few months ago. I’m still not sure what 
Peirce thought of Christ but I assume that (as was common in the late 19th 
century and early 20th century liberal theology) he tended to not take Jesus 
too seriously. At least in terms of the traditional theology.

To your broader point though there is a strong tradition that sees aporias as 
inherent to the universe. I’m not sure how Peirce sees that. It seems to me to 
be a strong philosophical tradition going back to Aristotle and arguably 
Plato’s early dialogs.
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-29 Thread Helmut Raulien 

Jon, Gary, List,

Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the nonexistence of God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon: If God is all-knowing, then He knows the future too, but then He is not almighty, because knowing it, He cannot change it. I think, this is a poor argument, because it suggests, that for God time is, like for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. And, that a paradoxon is a refutation. I guess both are not so: God might have a lot of more access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand close to at all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and if not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely understood by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable part of reality instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway, hope You have had a merry christmas (not knowing the nature of time, I cannot exclude the nonfutility of this wish), and happy new year!

Yours Helmut

 

28. Dezember 2016 um 23:33 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Gary R., List:
 

Well said.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt





 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Gary Richmond  wrote:


List,
 

For many scholars, Peirce's metaphysics--perhaps especially his religious metaphysics and what he sometimes referred to as his pre-scientific cosmology--has been the most problematic aspect of his philosophy. Personally, I have never found this to be the case and, indeed, I am quite aligned with his thinking in those areas while, as I've noted here from time to time, I arrived at my own not incongruent metaphysical and religious positions long before I was exposed to Peirce's. 

 

For the past few years I've been attempting, as a year's end message to the list, a kind of Peirce-inspired brief counter to such arguments as Betrand Russell's in his essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian." I've never succeeded in getting anything into reasonably good enough shape to send to the list, but this year, encouraged by an email interlocutor, I've finally decided to risk sending forth this year's attempt (it's the 5th year. and I don't save drafts of earlier attempts). I suppose I am doing this against my own better judgment.

 

Although Peirce once described his religious views as "buddheo-christian," I am, for the very limited purposes of this argument, going to use a principle of at least one school of Zen Buddhism as a foil to Christianity. I should immediately note that I have great respect for Zen having studied apsects of it for many years, and continue to find it to be one of the healthiest psychologies ever invented or discovered (see Alan Watts, Psychotherapy East and West, 1961). Zen is rich and complex, and my bouncing off this small piece of it is nothing more than a rhetorical device I'm employing to make a point.

 

The great Zen master, Rinzai (Chinese: Lin Chi), once said "The Buddha appeared in the world, turned the wheel of maha-dharma, then entered into nirvana; yet no trace of his coming and going can be seen." I consider that to be a rather succinct _expression_ of an important facet of the cosmology of at least this branch of Zen. 

 

But if this is a précis of that cosmology (while some scholars would no doubt argue that it is not and so is misleading), then it is certainly very far from Peirce's religious cosmology or that of Christianity more generally. As Peirce and Christianity see it, God didn't merely 'appear' in the world to then absolutely disengage from it (i.e., enter nirvana), but rather, He continuously creates it, and eternally loves it. For me the surest sign of this is evolution such as it appears in Peirce's agapism and writings on evolutionary love. And this is so even if as a race it would appear that we have sufficient "free will" to impede the fullest growth of love and thought, the latter considered by Peirce to be one of the few things in this world still capable of evolving in any significant sense. From the standpoint of those who are believers in God, some might say (and even though this is surely not the case for any number of individuals) that as a race we have turned our backs on God.

 

Turning now to Peirce's somewhat idiosyncratic ideas regarding cosmology, God, and religion, suffice it to say for now that it seems clear enough, at least to me, that he was indeed a theist, although not a dogmatic or doctrinaire one. Still, while some have questioned the authenticity of his religious convictions, it is my view that not only was he a theist, but that he was as well at least a kind of Christian. One could offer many quotations suggesting this, but here's one I often reflect on:

 




I do not believe that man can have the idea of any cause or agency so stupendous that there is any more adequate way

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-28 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt 
Gary R., List:

Well said.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> List,
>
> For many scholars, Peirce's metaphysics--perhaps especially his religious
> metaphysics and what he sometimes referred to as his pre-scientific
> cosmology--has been the most problematic aspect of his philosophy.
> Personally, I have never found this to be the case and, indeed, I am quite
> aligned with his thinking in those areas while, as I've noted here from
> time to time, I arrived at my own not incongruent metaphysical and
> religious positions long before I was exposed to Peirce's.
>
> For the past few years I've been attempting, as a year's end message to
> the list, a kind of Peirce-inspired brief counter to such arguments as
> Betrand Russell's in his essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian." I've never
> succeeded in getting anything into reasonably good enough shape to send to
> the list, but this year, encouraged by an email interlocutor, I've finally
> decided to risk sending forth this year's attempt (it's the 5th year. and I
> don't save drafts of earlier attempts). I suppose I am doing this against
> my own better judgment.
>
> Although Peirce once described his religious views as "buddheo-christian,"
> I am, for the very limited purposes of this argument, going to use a
> principle of at least one school of Zen Buddhism as a foil to Christianity.
> I should immediately note that I have great respect for Zen having studied
> apsects of it for many years, and continue to find it to be one of the
> healthiest psychologies ever invented or discovered (see Alan Watts, 
> *Psychotherapy
> East and West*, 1961). Zen is rich and complex, and my bouncing off this
> small piece of it is nothing more than a rhetorical device I'm employing to
> make a point.
>
> The great Zen master, Rinzai (Chinese: Lin Chi), once said "The Buddha 
> appeared
> in the world, turned the wheel of maha-dharma, then entered into nirvana;
> yet no trace of his coming and going can be seen." I consider that to be
> a rather succinct expression of an important facet of the cosmology of at
> least this branch of Zen.
>
> But if this is a précis of that cosmology (while some scholars would no
> doubt argue that it is not and so is misleading), then it is certainly very
> far from Peirce's religious cosmology or that of Christianity more
> generally. As Peirce and Christianity see it, God didn't merely 'appear' in
> the world to then absolutely disengage from it (i.e., enter nirvana), but
> rather, He continuously creates it, and eternally loves it. For me the
> surest sign of this is *evolution* such as it appears in Peirce's agapism
> and writings on evolutionary love. And this is so even if as a race it
> would appear that we have sufficient "free will" to impede the fullest
> growth of love and thought, the latter considered by Peirce to be one of
> the few things in this world still capable of evolving in any significant
> sense. From the standpoint of those who are believers in God, some might
> say (and even though this is surely not the case for any number of
> individuals) that as a race we have turned our backs on God.
>
> Turning now to Peirce's somewhat idiosyncratic ideas regarding cosmology,
> God, and religion, suffice it to say for now that it seems clear enough, at
> least to me, that he was indeed a theist, although not a dogmatic or
> doctrinaire one. Still, while some have questioned the authenticity of his
> religious convictions, it is my view that not only was he a theist, but
> that he was as well at least a *kind *of Christian. One could offer many
> quotations suggesting this, but here's one I often reflect on:
>
> I do not believe that man can have the idea of any cause or agency so
> stupendous that there is any more adequate way of conceiving it than as
> vaguely like a man. Therefore, whoever cannot look at the starry heaven
> without thinking that all this universe must have had an adequate cause,
> can in my opinion not otherwise think of that cause half so justly than by
> thinking it is God (CP 5.536, c. 1905).
>
>
> Yet he also argues that God's Mind is so unlike ours that our minds are as
> to His as an insect's is to ours.
>
> Again, according to the theory being outlined here, God does *not* but
> 'turn the wheel of dharma' and enter into some cosmic nirvana leaving us to
> struggle on our own in a cold, uncaring universe, but works in each one of
> us and in communities of good will to further the growth of love and
> intelligence. Indeed, as I now see it, the only hope for our world is
> that enough of us come more and more to embrace something like Peirce's
> vision of an *Ens Necessarium*, God, truly Creator of all Three Universes
> of Experience; and, further, that we find ways to e

[PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

2016-12-28 Thread Gary Richmond 
List,

For many scholars, Peirce's metaphysics--perhaps especially his religious
metaphysics and what he sometimes referred to as his pre-scientific
cosmology--has been the most problematic aspect of his philosophy.
Personally, I have never found this to be the case and, indeed, I am quite
aligned with his thinking in those areas while, as I've noted here from
time to time, I arrived at my own not incongruent metaphysical and
religious positions long before I was exposed to Peirce's.

For the past few years I've been attempting, as a year's end message to the
list, a kind of Peirce-inspired brief counter to such arguments as Betrand
Russell's in his essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian." I've never succeeded in
getting anything into reasonably good enough shape to send to the list, but
this year, encouraged by an email interlocutor, I've finally decided to
risk sending forth this year's attempt (it's the 5th year. and I don't save
drafts of earlier attempts). I suppose I am doing this against my own
better judgment.

Although Peirce once described his religious views as "buddheo-christian,"
I am, for the very limited purposes of this argument, going to use a
principle of at least one school of Zen Buddhism as a foil to Christianity.
I should immediately note that I have great respect for Zen having studied
apsects of it for many years, and continue to find it to be one of the
healthiest psychologies ever invented or discovered (see Alan Watts,
*Psychotherapy
East and West*, 1961). Zen is rich and complex, and my bouncing off this
small piece of it is nothing more than a rhetorical device I'm employing to
make a point.

The great Zen master, Rinzai (Chinese: Lin Chi), once said "The Buddha appeared
in the world, turned the wheel of maha-dharma, then entered into nirvana;
yet no trace of his coming and going can be seen." I consider that to be a
rather succinct expression of an important facet of the cosmology of at
least this branch of Zen.

But if this is a précis of that cosmology (while some scholars would no
doubt argue that it is not and so is misleading), then it is certainly very
far from Peirce's religious cosmology or that of Christianity more
generally. As Peirce and Christianity see it, God didn't merely 'appear' in
the world to then absolutely disengage from it (i.e., enter nirvana), but
rather, He continuously creates it, and eternally loves it. For me the
surest sign of this is *evolution* such as it appears in Peirce's agapism
and writings on evolutionary love. And this is so even if as a race it
would appear that we have sufficient "free will" to impede the fullest
growth of love and thought, the latter considered by Peirce to be one of
the few things in this world still capable of evolving in any significant
sense. From the standpoint of those who are believers in God, some might
say (and even though this is surely not the case for any number of
individuals) that as a race we have turned our backs on God.

Turning now to Peirce's somewhat idiosyncratic ideas regarding cosmology,
God, and religion, suffice it to say for now that it seems clear enough, at
least to me, that he was indeed a theist, although not a dogmatic or
doctrinaire one. Still, while some have questioned the authenticity of his
religious convictions, it is my view that not only was he a theist, but
that he was as well at least a *kind *of Christian. One could offer many
quotations suggesting this, but here's one I often reflect on:

I do not believe that man can have the idea of any cause or agency so
stupendous that there is any more adequate way of conceiving it than as
vaguely like a man. Therefore, whoever cannot look at the starry heaven
without thinking that all this universe must have had an adequate cause,
can in my opinion not otherwise think of that cause half so justly than by
thinking it is God (CP 5.536, c. 1905).


Yet he also argues that God's Mind is so unlike ours that our minds are as
to His as an insect's is to ours.

Again, according to the theory being outlined here, God does *not* but
'turn the wheel of dharma' and enter into some cosmic nirvana leaving us to
struggle on our own in a cold, uncaring universe, but works in each one of
us and in communities of good will to further the growth of love and
intelligence. Indeed, as I now see it, the only hope for our world is that
enough of us come more and more to embrace something like Peirce's vision
of an *Ens Necessarium*, God, truly Creator of all Three Universes of
Experience; and, further, that we find ways to express and share this
vision so that even, and perhaps especially, a scientific mind can affirm
it and guide her life and actions in accordance with it. In truth, it
 ought seem sensible to *any* normal mind including those less open to
learning, to trusting, to believing that this world--this* life*--has any
meaning, any purpose beyond what we can as individuals (and corporations)
make of it.

As I understand it, love--whether one is speaking of o