Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-04 Thread Helmut Raulien

John, Stephen,

I often am too quick with judgements. Now I agree with John, that Abbot probably was too harsh against religions, and was alienating people. Instead of just rejecting dogmas and myths, I guess it always is better to refute dogmas by redefining myths from dogmas towards parables, and at the same time pointing out the value of these parables. That is not only senseful, but also diplomatic, as it leaves the opponent an open backdoor instead of driving him against a wall.

Best, Helmut

 

 03. März 2018 um 23:47 Uhr
 "Stephen C. Rose" 
 


Sounds like we are pretty much agreed, John. I have posited that we have about a century to get things right and that would include leeching science of nominalism and I would add binary proclivities. Peirce and Abbot were staunch realists who are one in moving metaphysics into a configuration that would have made it amenable to the stringent demands of the pragmaticist maxim. My background is on the liberal side of American religion and I can suggest that Peirce and Abbot would have felt just as alienated as I have by what has passed for liberalism even in its Niebuhrian garb. The theological makeover desired by both men would have led them inexorably toward both universalism and nonviolence and away from the creedal messianism that continues to hold sway. The late Gene Sharp would have appealed to both men. 

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

Stephen and Helmut,

SCR
I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown.
 
I did not say 'breakdown'.  I said 'fragmentation'.

SCR
The civilization the two men aimed at philosophically is an
integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with science,
arriving at a post-religious spirituality. Of course it builds
on the past, but not all of it. 
 
That is certainly what Peirce was aiming at.  From your citation
of Abbot's defense, he seems to have similar hopes.

But the "Unified Science" that Carnap & Co. were trying to achieve
in the 1930s was nominalism at its most pernicious.  He used the
phrase "That's poetry!" to denounce any kind of value judgments
-- or any concept that resembled Thirdness.

I recall one anecdote about a student who came to the first lecture
of a philosophy class taught by a highly regarded logician.  At the
end of the lecture, the student raised his hand and timidly asked
a question:  "Professor, when will we get to the meaning of life?"
The professor glared at him, pointed to the door, and shouted "OUT!"

For evidence of fragmentation, the political sphere is the worst,
and it's affecting every aspect of our daily lives.
 
I would not agree that [Abbot] had wide influence or even that
he could have had.

I did not say that he had.  I said that he had a position as pastor,
which gave him a weekly opportunity to preach to his congregation.
I don't know his personal style, but I suspect it was more preachy
than sympathetic.  Any teacher who listens to the students could
get an excellent education in how to communicate.

>From reading Peirce's writings chronologically, one can see that much
of his best writings came after his travels abroad, his occasional
lecture series, and the few years he taught at Johns Hopkins.  I also
believe that his correspondence with Lady Welby was a very important
influence on getting him to clarify and systematize his insights.

Since I don't know much about Abbot, I can't say anything certain.
But I do know colleagues who started with an abysmal teaching style,
listened to feedback from their students, and revised their methods
to the point where they became very popular as teachers.  One extreme
example is James Martin, who made a fortune as a lecturer and author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(author)

Martin was no genius.  But he listened to students and colleagues.
After ten years of teaching IBM employees, he developed his style,
published some popular textbooks, and took a leave of absence from
IBM to go on a world-wide tour -- from which he earned more money
than he ever got from IBM.  So he never went back.

HR
I like Abbot very much, especially for showing progressive or
enlightened people a way to worship god and divinity, instead
of having to become atheists like Dawkins. Abbot is literally
a soul-saver, I think.
 
Perhaps so.  But I think he could have been more successful in saving
souls and himself if he had listened to the people in his congregation.
Like the people who heard him preach, Abbot started with a Christian
background.  Instead of alienating people, he could have listened
sympathetically.  As Unitarians, they would have been happy to hear
how their Judeo-Christian background was related to other religions.

If Abbot had listened to their complaints, he could have included
more Christian and Jewish stories and proverbs in his sermons without
in any way compromising his own beliefs.  He could have 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-03 Thread Stephen C. Rose
Sounds like we are pretty much agreed, John. I have posited that we have
about a century to get things right and that would include leeching science
of nominalism and I would add binary proclivities. Peirce and Abbot were
staunch realists who are one in moving metaphysics into a configuration
that would have made it amenable to the stringent demands of the
pragmaticist maxim. My background is on the liberal side of American
religion and I can suggest that Peirce and Abbot would have felt just as
alienated as I have by what has passed for liberalism even in its
Niebuhrian garb. The theological makeover desired by both men would have
led them inexorably toward both universalism and nonviolence and away from
the creedal messianism that continues to hold sway. The late Gene Sharp
would have appealed to both men.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> Stephen and Helmut,
>
> SCR
>
>> I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown.
>>
>
> I did not say 'breakdown'.  I said 'fragmentation'.
>
> SCR
>
>> The civilization the two men aimed at philosophically is an
>> integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with science,
>> arriving at a post-religious spirituality. Of course it builds
>> on the past, but not all of it.
>>
>
> That is certainly what Peirce was aiming at.  From your citation
> of Abbot's defense, he seems to have similar hopes.
>
> But the "Unified Science" that Carnap & Co. were trying to achieve
> in the 1930s was nominalism at its most pernicious.  He used the
> phrase "That's poetry!" to denounce any kind of value judgments
> -- or any concept that resembled Thirdness.
>
> I recall one anecdote about a student who came to the first lecture
> of a philosophy class taught by a highly regarded logician.  At the
> end of the lecture, the student raised his hand and timidly asked
> a question:  "Professor, when will we get to the meaning of life?"
> The professor glared at him, pointed to the door, and shouted "OUT!"
>
> For evidence of fragmentation, the political sphere is the worst,
> and it's affecting every aspect of our daily lives.
>
> I would not agree that [Abbot] had wide influence or even that
>> he could have had.
>>
>
> I did not say that he had.  I said that he had a position as pastor,
> which gave him a weekly opportunity to preach to his congregation.
> I don't know his personal style, but I suspect it was more preachy
> than sympathetic.  Any teacher who listens to the students could
> get an excellent education in how to communicate.
>
> From reading Peirce's writings chronologically, one can see that much
> of his best writings came after his travels abroad, his occasional
> lecture series, and the few years he taught at Johns Hopkins.  I also
> believe that his correspondence with Lady Welby was a very important
> influence on getting him to clarify and systematize his insights.
>
> Since I don't know much about Abbot, I can't say anything certain.
> But I do know colleagues who started with an abysmal teaching style,
> listened to feedback from their students, and revised their methods
> to the point where they became very popular as teachers.  One extreme
> example is James Martin, who made a fortune as a lecturer and author:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(author)
>
> Martin was no genius.  But he listened to students and colleagues.
> After ten years of teaching IBM employees, he developed his style,
> published some popular textbooks, and took a leave of absence from
> IBM to go on a world-wide tour -- from which he earned more money
> than he ever got from IBM.  So he never went back.
>
> HR
>
>> I like Abbot very much, especially for showing progressive or
>> enlightened people a way to worship god and divinity, instead
>> of having to become atheists like Dawkins. Abbot is literally
>> a soul-saver, I think.
>>
>
> Perhaps so.  But I think he could have been more successful in saving
> souls and himself if he had listened to the people in his congregation.
> Like the people who heard him preach, Abbot started with a Christian
> background.  Instead of alienating people, he could have listened
> sympathetically.  As Unitarians, they would have been happy to hear
> how their Judeo-Christian background was related to other religions.
>
> If Abbot had listened to their complaints, he could have included
> more Christian and Jewish stories and proverbs in his sermons without
> in any way compromising his own beliefs.  He could have gradually
> broadened his perspective while increasing his audience instead of
> losing it -- and falling into the despair that led to suicide.
>
> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-03 Thread John F Sowa

Stephen and Helmut,

SCR

I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown.


I did not say 'breakdown'.  I said 'fragmentation'.

SCR

The civilization the two men aimed at philosophically is an
integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with science,
arriving at a post-religious spirituality. Of course it builds
on the past, but not all of it. 


That is certainly what Peirce was aiming at.  From your citation
of Abbot's defense, he seems to have similar hopes.

But the "Unified Science" that Carnap & Co. were trying to achieve
in the 1930s was nominalism at its most pernicious.  He used the
phrase "That's poetry!" to denounce any kind of value judgments
-- or any concept that resembled Thirdness.

I recall one anecdote about a student who came to the first lecture
of a philosophy class taught by a highly regarded logician.  At the
end of the lecture, the student raised his hand and timidly asked
a question:  "Professor, when will we get to the meaning of life?"
The professor glared at him, pointed to the door, and shouted "OUT!"

For evidence of fragmentation, the political sphere is the worst,
and it's affecting every aspect of our daily lives.


I would not agree that [Abbot] had wide influence or even that
he could have had.


I did not say that he had.  I said that he had a position as pastor,
which gave him a weekly opportunity to preach to his congregation.
I don't know his personal style, but I suspect it was more preachy
than sympathetic.  Any teacher who listens to the students could
get an excellent education in how to communicate.

From reading Peirce's writings chronologically, one can see that much
of his best writings came after his travels abroad, his occasional
lecture series, and the few years he taught at Johns Hopkins.  I also
believe that his correspondence with Lady Welby was a very important
influence on getting him to clarify and systematize his insights.

Since I don't know much about Abbot, I can't say anything certain.
But I do know colleagues who started with an abysmal teaching style,
listened to feedback from their students, and revised their methods
to the point where they became very popular as teachers.  One extreme
example is James Martin, who made a fortune as a lecturer and author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(author)

Martin was no genius.  But he listened to students and colleagues.
After ten years of teaching IBM employees, he developed his style,
published some popular textbooks, and took a leave of absence from
IBM to go on a world-wide tour -- from which he earned more money
than he ever got from IBM.  So he never went back.

HR

I like Abbot very much, especially for showing progressive or
enlightened people a way to worship god and divinity, instead
of having to become atheists like Dawkins. Abbot is literally
a soul-saver, I think.


Perhaps so.  But I think he could have been more successful in saving
souls and himself if he had listened to the people in his congregation.
Like the people who heard him preach, Abbot started with a Christian
background.  Instead of alienating people, he could have listened
sympathetically.  As Unitarians, they would have been happy to hear
how their Judeo-Christian background was related to other religions.

If Abbot had listened to their complaints, he could have included
more Christian and Jewish stories and proverbs in his sermons without
in any way compromising his own beliefs.  He could have gradually
broadened his perspective while increasing his audience instead of
losing it -- and falling into the despair that led to suicide.

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] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-02 Thread Helmut Raulien

John, List,

I think, in each religion there always was a contest, often eruping into fight, between the spiritual and the prophetist fractions. Both have different gods: The god of the spirituals is, like in John´s gospel, understandable for us: Logos. The god of the prophetists/ fundamentalists is obscure, it is not us being able to understand him. He even is envious, for those who claim, that the old testament is god´s word. Some religions "solve" this problem by claiming two gods: The gnostics. I think, Heidegger too was such a gnostitian, with his "Gestell"- theory. I think, the prophetists/fundamentalists don´t trust themselves for being able to see the divine, or to apply the scientific method. From this self-disrespect they disrespect humanity as a whole, and hate especially humans who claim that god and the divinity is obvious, like Abbot. They would call him a heretic. I like Abbot very much, especially for showing progressive or enlightened people a way to worship god and divinity, instead of having to become atheists like Dawkins. Abbot is literally a soul-saver, I think.

Best, Helmut

 

02. März 2018 um 17:31 Uhr
Von: "John F Sowa" 
 

On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a
salutary flourish at the end.
> The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ellingwood_Abbot

That provides some good background about F. E. Abbot, and it's
significant that Peirce took his side. But I do not find anything
salutary about suicide, and certainly not by someone who might
have contributed much more if he had continued to write and preach.

On a related point, I have a great deal of sympathy for religions
that have flourished for thousands of years. They integrate
metaphysics, normative science, a worldview, a social conscience,
and a way of life that appeals to people at every level of society.

You can't say that about the currently fragmented "mainstream"
of philosophy, science, sociology, political thought, and life.

In fact, that's one reason why I was attracted to Peirce's views,
because he did manage to integrate those fields. Unfortunately,
he wasn't able to communicate effectively to a wider audience.

Abbot was able to preach to a large audience. If he had been
more circumspect in his choice of metaphors, he might have been
able to lead them where he wanted to go. Thomas Merton, for
example, was a Trappist Monk who managed to remain in good
standing with the Catholic Church while writing books about
Buddhism and Taoism.

Following is a note that I recently sent to Ontolog Forum, which
includes a longer note from last July. It addresses some similar
issues.

John

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concepts, properties, views, events
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:44:53 -0500
From: John F Sowa 
To: ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com

On 3/1/2018 7:26 AM, KI wrote:
> Are the terms Language and Logic synonyms then?

In a broad sense, you could say that. But to avoid confusion,
it's important to distinguish natural languages from artificial
languages -- and informal or natural logic from formal logics.

With that distinction, every artificial language is a specialized
notation that could be translated to and from a subset of any
natural language. Wittgenstein would call that subset a
"language game". But a natural language is the potentially
infinite set of all possible language games that could be played
with a given syntax and vocabulary.

Then every formal logic is an artificial language that is used
with precisely defined methods of reasoning and criteria for
distinguishing denotations and truth conditions.

> "To the ancient Greek Goēs, the world of the divine was not just
> shear chaos. The forces of the universe had a logic behind them
> that gave them shape. Their form could be accessed and interacted
> with using a special language. Hence, the reason for glossolalia." [1].
>
> [1] https://www.thepostil.com/the-logos-a-brief-history/

That description of the *logos* is from the Christian tradition.
From that perspective, it's reasonably accurate. From a wider
perspective, many scholars have found strong similarities among
the Greek logos, the Chinese Dao (or Tao), and the Buddhist Dharma.
In fact, the Chinese version of the New Testament translates
Logos to Dao.

Heraclitus (Fragment 1), about 400 BC
> all things come to be according to this logos

About 500 years later, John the Evangelist wrote (in Greek)
> In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God. And the
> Logos was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things came to
> be through it, and without it nothing came to be that has come to be.

Since John was my namesake, I have a lot of sympathy with the idea.
See below for a note I sent to Ontolog Forum in July 2017.

John

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Abstract Objects
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:54:55 -0400
From: John F Sowa 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-02 Thread Stephen C. Rose
Hi John. First I added this to my trove on Abbot on Medium.
https://medium.com/everything-comes/f-e-abbots-libel-case-against-josiah-royce-7e8dd3012457
The complete text of Abbott's defense against Josiah Royce for what appears
to have been a rather complete misunderstanding of him on Royce's part.
Peirce took Abbot's side in this dispute with predictably muted
support from the usual suspects. I was being somewhat flippant in noting
Abbot's suicide. But he was unified with his wife in a rare and important
way it seems and he had reached the end of a long and productive time. I
would not agree that he had wide influence or even that he could have had.
He was closer to Pierce in that respect though he did publish books. He was
booted by Unitarians which is wondrous when you think about it, but
completely sensible. Unitarianism is not Peirce or Abbot.

I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown. The breakdown we
experience is a necessary trauma as the world emerges from the vale of
violence, patriarchy, exclusivism, and hierarchy that is part and parcel of
what Peirce and Abbot were against. The civilization the two men aimed at
philosophically is an integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with
science, arriving at a post-religious spirituality. Of course it builds on
the past, but not all of it.

I do not look at suicide as negatively as I might, given my own stance
which is nonviolent. But that is a long discussion.

You mention Merton who managed to electrocute himself by accident. Then
there was the former President of Union Seminary Henry Pitney Van Dusen who
had a suicide pact with his wife and shot her and failed to finish himself
off.

Part of my reaction to Abbot was that he waited ten years exactly after his
wife died and then succeeded. This was not ill-considered. That, and being
more than a century ahead of where my alma mater Union was when I left in
1961 after an amusing meeting with the President, Dr. Van Dusen, seems a
success of sorts.

On the whole, the future belongs to Peirce and Abbot and the signs of the
times are in their favor. Or so I think.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a
> salutary flourish at the end.
>
>> The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ellingwood_Abbot
>
> That provides some good background about F. E. Abbot, and it's
> significant that Peirce took his side.  But I do not find anything
> salutary about suicide, and certainly not by someone who might
> have contributed much more if he had continued to write and preach.
>
> On a related point, I have a great deal of sympathy for religions
> that have flourished for thousands of years.  They integrate
> metaphysics, normative science, a worldview, a social conscience,
> and a way of life that appeals to people at every level of society.
>
> You can't say that about the currently fragmented "mainstream"
> of philosophy, science, sociology, political thought, and life.
>
> In fact, that's one reason why I was attracted to Peirce's views,
> because he did manage to integrate those fields.  Unfortunately,
> he wasn't able to communicate effectively to a wider audience.
>
> Abbot was able to preach to a large audience.  If he had been
> more circumspect in his choice of metaphors, he might have been
> able to lead them where he wanted to go.  Thomas Merton, for
> example, was a Trappist Monk who managed to remain in good
> standing with the Catholic Church while writing books about
> Buddhism and Taoism.
>
> Following is a note that I recently sent to Ontolog Forum, which
> includes a longer note from last July.  It addresses some similar
> issues.
>
> John
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concepts, properties, views, events
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:44:53 -0500
> From: John F Sowa 
> To: ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com
>
> On 3/1/2018 7:26 AM, KI wrote:
>
>> Are the terms Language and Logic synonyms then?
>>
>
> In a broad sense, you could say that.  But to avoid confusion,
> it's important to distinguish natural languages from artificial
> languages -- and informal or natural logic from formal logics.
>
> With that distinction, every artificial language is a specialized
> notation that could be translated to and from a subset of any
> natural language.  Wittgenstein would call that subset a
> "language game".  But a natural language is the potentially
> infinite set of all possible language games that could be played
> with a given syntax and vocabulary.
>
> Then every formal logic is an artificial language that is used
> with precisely defined methods of reasoning and criteria for
> distinguishing denotations and truth conditions.
>
> "To the ancient Greek Goēs, the world of the divine was not just
>> shear chaos. The forces of the universe had a 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

2018-03-02 Thread John F Sowa
On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a 
salutary flourish at the end.

The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ellingwood_Abbot

That provides some good background about F. E. Abbot, and it's
significant that Peirce took his side.  But I do not find anything
salutary about suicide, and certainly not by someone who might
have contributed much more if he had continued to write and preach.

On a related point, I have a great deal of sympathy for religions
that have flourished for thousands of years.  They integrate
metaphysics, normative science, a worldview, a social conscience,
and a way of life that appeals to people at every level of society.

You can't say that about the currently fragmented "mainstream"
of philosophy, science, sociology, political thought, and life.

In fact, that's one reason why I was attracted to Peirce's views,
because he did manage to integrate those fields.  Unfortunately,
he wasn't able to communicate effectively to a wider audience.

Abbot was able to preach to a large audience.  If he had been
more circumspect in his choice of metaphors, he might have been
able to lead them where he wanted to go.  Thomas Merton, for
example, was a Trappist Monk who managed to remain in good
standing with the Catholic Church while writing books about
Buddhism and Taoism.

Following is a note that I recently sent to Ontolog Forum, which
includes a longer note from last July.  It addresses some similar
issues.

John

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concepts, properties, views, events
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:44:53 -0500
From: John F Sowa 
To: ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com

On 3/1/2018 7:26 AM, KI wrote:

Are the terms Language and Logic synonyms then?


In a broad sense, you could say that.  But to avoid confusion,
it's important to distinguish natural languages from artificial
languages -- and informal or natural logic from formal logics.

With that distinction, every artificial language is a specialized
notation that could be translated to and from a subset of any
natural language.  Wittgenstein would call that subset a
"language game".  But a natural language is the potentially
infinite set of all possible language games that could be played
with a given syntax and vocabulary.

Then every formal logic is an artificial language that is used
with precisely defined methods of reasoning and criteria for
distinguishing denotations and truth conditions.


"To the ancient Greek Goēs, the world of the divine was not just
shear chaos. The forces of the universe had a logic behind them
that gave them shape. Their form could be accessed and interacted
with using a special language. Hence, the reason for glossolalia." [1].

[1] https://www.thepostil.com/the-logos-a-brief-history/


That description of the *logos* is from the Christian tradition.
From that perspective, it's reasonably accurate.  From a wider
perspective, many scholars have found strong similarities among
the Greek logos, the Chinese Dao (or Tao), and the Buddhist Dharma.
In fact, the Chinese version of the New Testament translates
Logos to Dao.

Heraclitus (Fragment 1), about 400 BC

all things come to be according to this logos


About 500 years later, John the Evangelist wrote (in Greek)

In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God.  And the
Logos was God. It was in the beginning with God.  All things came to
be through it, and without it nothing came to be that has come to be.


Since John was my namesake, I have a lot of sympathy with the idea.
See below for a note I sent to Ontolog Forum in July 2017.

John

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Abstract Objects
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:54:55 -0400
From: John F Sowa 
To: ontolog-forum 

Abstract objects include everything that can be transmitted as
bits rather than atoms.   That includes all of mathematics and
any signs, symbols, notations, patterns, structures, languages,
or programs that can be stored or processed by a digital computer.

For applied ontology, abstract entities are important things to
represent.  Without an ontology that includes them, it's impossible
to talk about how anything in the computer relates to anything in
an application.  But some philosophers have tried to eliminate
abstract entities as values of quantified variables.  For example,

Goodman & Quine (1947) http://www.ditext.com/quine/stcn-con.html

We do not believe in abstract entities. No one supposes that abstract
entities -- classes, relations, properties, etc. -- exist in space-time;
but we mean more than this. We renounce them altogether. We shall not
forego all use of predicates and other words that are often taken to
name abstract objects... But we cannot use variables that call for
abstract objects as values.


The logician Alonzo Church (1951) replied to G & Q:

AC,