Thanks Jerry. Nice to wake up to. I think we can generally say if it is clearly dualistic and the reasoning is binary, we-they, my-way-or-the-highway, we don't agree. If the thought is triadic, reflecting thinking in threes as a conscious dealing with signs, we are at least in the ball-park, stumbling fallibly toward something we can hold to.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: > List, Stephen: > > I fully concur with your characterization of the context of what is being > attempted with the categorization of a particular post as being "Peircian" > or not; or of "things Peircian" or not.. > > From my view, the richness of the mind / writings of CSP are so vast and > far-flung and so historical contextualized that is any claim to being a > "Peircian post" or a "non-Peircian post" is a priori problematic as a > consequence of the century past. Such claims by the "less than humble" > contributors bring to my mind the images of single-minded political groups, > such as the metaphors cast into the public political discourse by the Tea > Party. This is one of the more onerous aspects of category theory within > the grammar of natural language. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > On May 31, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > The specific designation I was replying to was a one line post which which > said an article about triadic physics was not "Peircean" so I shall let > that be my example. I have sensed from Peirce the suggestion that the self > itself is vague. And that the community is important to the disposition of > things. The conclusion of 4 Incapacities and the coda which ends "his > glassy essence" concludes what can only be a fairly dour view of the self. > But where I might share the dour attitude would be in accepting the term > "Peircean" as having a partricular meaning. I am not sure that anyone > including Peirce can arrive at any statement that says, beyond the time of > its utterance, who one is. I believe the self is most alive when it is > acting on conscious considerations that lead to conclusions that are in > concert with universal values. And that the person is formed daily by the > exercise (or not) of consciousness. So my response to Steven was both a > protest against the assumption that "Peircean" is clear expression and an > effort to address the problems I see in the act of characterization. > Objects of bullying are frequent victims of the most onerous > characterizations. We often torment ourselves over the characterizations of > us by others. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> > wrote: > >> Stephen wrote: Does this explain it? >> >> P reply: Not for me; your post seems vague. I wonder what sort of >> specific examples you might have. I find that when I say something about >> Peirce that I can back up with examples, such statements are usually well >> received. When I'm incorrect in regards to Peirce and things Peircean, I >> like to know it. (A good example is my recent mistake about Peirce's early >> nominalism). There are some things that I've seen as naturally evolving out >> of Peirce (as new applications based on his semiotic, such as educational >> philosophy and also Ai). And there are some things I agree more with Dewey >> than Peirce (such as the relationship between abduction and experience). >> Just wondering where you are coming from on this. >> >> Regards, Phyllis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Phyllis...I feel that if I say Peirce is (any characteristic) or say that >> of anyone I am in violation of the command judge not that you be not >> judged. I see even "Peircean" as a sort of litmus test (are you are aren't >> you?). Does this explain it? Cheers, S >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> >> >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, >>> I don't understand your post. >>> Phyllis >>> >>> >>> "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "Peircean" Yikes. The problem is that anything we do about Peirce of >>> anyone really is characterization which I hold to be at worst a curse and >>> at best a brake on the inherent freedom of anyone to grow, change or, ahem, >>> participate in reality aka continuity. I will keep quiet but really. >>> >>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Contradictory and I doubt Peircean. >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, May 19, 2014, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1. God is real but does not exist: so the best way to worship him is >>>>> through the religion of science >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought this sums up nicely Section 9.6 in Kees' book and was a good >>>>> way to start the discussion of: *God, science and religion*. Peirce's >>>>> theory of the relation between science and religion is one of the most >>>>> controversial aspects of his pragmaticist semiotics only second to his >>>>> evolutionary objective idealism influenced by Schelling (Niemoczynski and >>>>> Ejsing) and based on his version of Duns Scotus' extreme scholastic >>>>> realism, which Kees' did an exemplary presentation of as well. Peirce's >>>>> view of religion and how science is deeply connected to it in a way that >>>>> differs from what any other philosopher has suggested except Whitehead's >>>>> process philosophy, but there are also important differences here. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have no quarrels with Kees' exemplary understandable formulations in >>>>> the short space he has. That leaves opportunity for us to discuss all the >>>>> interesting aspects he left out like Peirce's *Panentheism* (Michael >>>>> Raposa , Clayton and Peacock), his almost *Neo-Platonist* (Kelly >>>>> Parker http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html ) >>>>> metaphysics of emptiness or *Tohu va Bohu* (see also Parker) and >>>>> ongoing creation in his process view, and from this basic idea of >>>>> emptiness ( that is also foundational to Nargajuna's Buddhism of the >>>>> middle >>>>> way ) a connection to Buddhism. This was encouraging Peirce to see >>>>> Buddhism >>>>> and Christianity in their purest mystical forms integrated into an >>>>> agapistic *Buddhisto-Christian* process view of God. Brent mentions >>>>> an unsent letter from Peirce's hand describing a mystical revelation in >>>>> the >>>>> second edition of the biography. This idea of Buddhisto-Christianity was >>>>> taken up by Charles Hartshorne - one of the most important >>>>> philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century - >>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartshorne/ who also wrote about >>>>> Whitehead's process view of the sacred (see references)*. * >>>>> >>>>> I have collected many of the necessary quotes and interpreted them in >>>>> this article >>>>> http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/A%20Peircean%20Panentheist%20Scientific%20Mysticism.pdf >>>>> , and in Brier 2012 below. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even Peirce's evolutionary objective idealism is too much to swallow >>>>> for most scientists who are not fans of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. So >>>>> even >>>>> today it is considering a violation of rationality to support an >>>>> evolutionary process objective idealism like Peirce's, which include a >>>>> phenomenological view. Even in the biosemiotic group this is dynamite. We >>>>> have h >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
