Stephen, just a few insertions by way of reply:
gary f. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: 20-May-14 8:48 AM To: Gary Fuhrman Cc: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science and religion: text 1 I think within the NA text there is ample basis for inferring that at the time of its writing CSP had long practiced what he advocated - a damningly unstructured mode of thinking that he advocated almost universally and certainly for persons untrained in the philosophy that is the basis for most Peirce studies. Rising from play, pure play, linking the barely described universes of experience, but saying enough to imply a triadic semiotic originating in vagueness and progressing through rude shock to a creative linkage that might have the chance to move toward activation, even habit. If this is not meta-physical, then what is? gf: What's metaphysical, in Peirce's sense of the word, is his scientific metaphysics, as he called it. This has very little to do with either Musement or mysticism; but anyway metaphysics is not the issue here. As Kees explains in 9.5, Peirce's remarks on God are primarily based on the "natural light" of reason, which is essential to his critical-common-sensism, which I think is what you're referring to here: I think CSP has been virtually ignored regarding what might be called his populist or everyman assertions. Turning to revelation and mysticism, I am inclined to credit Brent with insight into the way CSP dealt with the realization of his situation and his experience in the Episcopal Church and to call that mystical in the sense of it being something that siezed him, not something he simply realized. I do not think revelation means more than a description of that experience. gf: But Peirce does not give any description of the experience, nor does he mention any kind of knowledge gained from it, or any difference it made to his life. I do not think the NA could have been written without that foundational event. gf: Why not? And why is there no mention of mystical experience in the NA? Again, the argument there is based on "natural light," on which Peirce contributed an entry in Baldwin's Dictionary, defining it as "A natural power, or instinct, by which men are led to the truth about matters which concern them, in anticipation of experience or revelation.. The phrase is used in contradistinction to supernatural light." Peirce frequently refers to this "natural light" (often using Galileo's phrase "il lume naturale") in his works about the logic of science, and I don't think he ever refers to it as "mystical." Nor does it appear to be "mystical" in our current sense of the word, because it is eminently reasonable. I do not see science as an object of worship for Peirce, rather as a simple acknowledgement that things, perhaps extending as far as the mystical, can be measured and evaluated in terms of their practical effect. Where then is the evidence, or testimony from Peirce, that any "mystical experience" of his had any practical effect on his habits, his logic or his semiotic? I don't see any such evidence in Brent.
----------------------------- 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 .
