Dear Soren, If the question is how can we make any kind of sense of the human condition, which is what I take you to refer to when you speak of "spirituality" then I believe that we must put Charles aside and focus instead upon the efforts of others, including his father and brother (Royce and James, etc..).
Steven On Monday, June 2, 2014, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > Dear Stev(ph)en and list > > > > About the meaning of spirituality. I am presently reading Basarab > Nicolescu (2014): *From modernity to Cosmodernity: Science, Culture and > Spirituality* > > > > On p. 13 here expressed the transcultural experience of reality in a very > eloquent way, that I find very close to Peirce pure Zero or Tohu va Bohu > and Nargajuna’s emptiness from which all things co-arise: > > > > “The perception of the transcultural is, first of all, an experience, > because it concerns the silence of different actualizations. The space > between the levels of reality is the space of this silence. It is the > equivalent, in interior space, of what is called the quantum vacuum in > exterior space. It is a full silence, structured in levels. There are as > many levels of silences as there are correlations between levels of > perception and levels of reality. And beyond all these levels of silence, > there is another quality of silence, that place-without-place that the poet > Michel Casmus calls “our luminous ignorance”. This nucleus of silence > appears to us as an unknowable because it is the unfathomable well of > knowledge, but this unknowable is luminous because it illuminates the very > structure of knowledge. The levels of silence and the levels of our > luminous ignorance determine our lucidity.” > > > > Best > > > > Søren > > > > *Fra:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stever...@gmail.com');>] > *Sendt:* 1. juni 2014 20:16 > *Til:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peirce-l@list.iupui.edu');> > *Emne:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > > > Steven - Hope your hospital stay has good results. > > > > It's funny to think of my resonance with Peirce in light of the fact of my > seminary training and lifelong work as both a representative and critic of > the church. I see little or no distinction between Peirce's thinking as a > whole and his thinking that explicitly relates to theology and religion. To > make this distinction sets him up for the charges you levy. I am not sure > on what basis your general observations on the relative spiritualities > within the Peirce family rest, but I tend to take them as less than > substantiated by evidence. I could be wrong. But I have studies some in the > areas of American and English universalism and its morphing into the less > interesting (to me) and more predictable unitarianism. I think CSP may have > more affinity with the earliest universalists and that these have some odd > but not insignificant ties to some views of the late Karl Barth and even to > Paul. CSP reserves great acidity for what he regards as a failing of John, > the assumed author of the Fourth Gospel, and perhaps also of the Book of > Revelation. I think Peirce is foundational in any discussion of holism, > moving past Snow, and getting to some understanding of Christianity past > the fundamentalist culture religion that has largely supplanted both > neo-orthodoxy and liberalism. Best, S > > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> > wrote: > > > > Dear Soren, > > > > My apologizes for the delayed response (I am hospitalized currently). My > comment deserves clarification as Soren suggests. > > > > In brief, Charles' really should not be considered seriously with respect > to social religion and his relationship with formal religion except through > his Neglected Agument (yet another advocacy of his semiotic). God > certainly is not something he "worships" in any traditional sense and his > advocacy of "worship" is not at all religious ( but painfully manipulative > and social). His father and brother are different and more holistic in this > regard. If there is a commonreligious thread between them it is > positivism. But Charles, in my view, should be dismissed. > > > > At some point Stanford will make my January talk on this subject > available. > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 31, 2014, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > Dear Steven > > > > It is obvious not so to me. So, would you care to explain us why you think > so? That would be an interesting contribution to our discussion. I have > long felt that although we in many ways were on the same track, there were > also some deep disagreement on basic interpretations. But I have not been > able to put my finger on it. Maybe you can? > > > > Cheers > >
----------------------------- 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 .
