I agree with John's statements of fact though not their context which I think skirts the matter of whether the whole thing is friendly. I think it is disposed to be helpful to us and more friend than foe.
Soren: The Lord's Prayer is the only prayer Jesus commended to his disciples and is widely used if not heeded. It begins Our Father which in Aramaic is Abba which is a shockingly familiar mode of suggesting this friendly assumption. I think we can infer from what we know of nature or reality or whatever we call what we are in, that this friendliness is present. I cannot conclude anything other than that Peirce did the same. He was more inclined to the tenor of the Lord's Prayer than the devolved elocutions of the author of Revelation. If one wishes to maintain that the universe, or reality, is neutral, that is fine. But it leaves us in just the same place. As persons who live in a penumbra that is more mystery than not even with our semi-conductors and formulae. It is our struggle here that leads to the conclusions of the NA. If you want my version of the prayer just email and I will send you a copy direct. Cheers, S *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:33 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > Quite. The term 'god' has been used traditionally to refer to something > that wills from no place in existence. There is no such being. It is > impossible. > > John > > > At 03:41 PM 2014-06-17, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Soren - I don't use the term or even the concept of god to explain the > difference between 'reality' and 'existential'. I reject the concept (of > god) IF it includes any notion of Will or Intentionality attached to it. To > me, reality is a natural process, which functions as a rational (not human > reasoning) but a logical, ordered force developing complex adaptive > networks of matter. It is the force of Thirdness and I don't refer to it as > 'god'. > > The distinction, as John points out, between existence and reality is > vital. Therefore, I can see the point of John's reference to the Higgs > boson (or field), which also refers to the transformation of massless > energy (potential) to actual particles with mass: or reality-to-existence. > And, equally, his rejection of the metaphor of the 'god particle' is valid, > I think, since the same analysis of 'what is going on in nature' can be > examined either theologically, as you do with the use of the term of 'god', > or within physics with the use of the examination of massless to mass > transformation, or philosophically, with the use of the transformation of > the potential to the actual. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> > To: 'John Collier' <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> ; Edwina Taborsky > <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Catherine Legg <cl...@waikato.ac.nz> ; Gary > Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; g...@gnusystems.ca > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:06 AM > Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > Dear John > > What term other than God would you find better? We are talking about the > ultimate reality that holds everything else together and is you most > intimate connection to reality and meaning. I find your example of the > Higgs boson is very misleading and a bit offending. Makes me wonder if you > have really understood me. > > Best > > Søren > > Fra: John Collier [ mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>] > Sendt: 17. juni 2014 06:38 > Til: Edwina Taborsky; Søren Brier; Catherine Legg; Gary Richmond; > g...@gnusystems.ca > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > I concur with Edwina; I see no reason to call the real here 'god'. I have > taken a similar line in my classes for decades when looking at what > Aquinas' Five Ways would imply (Aquinas, of course, does not make Peirce's > distinction between existence and reality, so his use of 'existence' is > misleading at best). > > In fact I find this sort of 'god' talk misleading, in much the same way as > calling the Higgs boson 'the God particle' is misleading. > > John > > > At 07:49 AM 2014-06-16, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Thanks, Soren, for this outline - very nice. In particular, the brief and > succinct account: > > God is real but does not exists and therefore is not conscious and cannot > have a will based on a personhood as it is understood by most Theists. > Therefore the whole creationist concept of a conscious plan in the creation > of the world would collapses and only Peirce's synechist and thycistic > semiotic Agapism remains. As in evolutionary epistemology there is a deep > connection between the process of human cognition , ecology and evolution > in the form of semiosis' combination of chance, love and logic. > > The differentiation between 'reality' and 'the existence' is important, as > is the location of 'will' within existentiality rather than within reality. > > Even though I'm an atheist and don't accept the notion of 'god', I do > accept the notion of reality - a reality that is rational, evolving, > logical and that acknowledges chance and love. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> > To: Catherine Legg <cl...@waikato.ac.nz> ; Gary Richmond > <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; g...@gnusystems.ca > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:34 AM > Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > Dear Cathy > > Thank you for your appreciation of my work. It is heartwarming coming from > such a good philosopher ! The references came from the fact that a lot of > my writing was based on those two article that was not accepted by the > referees of the Centennial conference, probably because this is a > "dangerous area" in Peirce's philosophy for many analytically trained > philosophers. > > There is no doubt that Peirce's evolutionary process view combined with > his fallibilism adds something to both Buddhism and Christianity as also > Hartshorne see it in his development of a process theology. Thus evolution > is God's way of creating the world. The problem with this understanding > for most ordinary Christians is that it would demand a change in their > concept of God to Peirce's: God is real but does not exists and therefore > is not conscious and cannot have a will based on a personhood as it is > understood by most Theists. Therefore the whole creationist concept of a > conscious plan in the creation of the world would collapses and only > Peirce's synechist and thycistic semiotic Agapism remains. As in > evolutionary epistemology there is a deep connection between the process of > human cognition , ecology and evolution in the form of semiosis' > combination of chance, love and logic. John Archibald Wheeler's "it from > bit participatory universe" is the closest a modern philosophical physicist > has come to Peirce's vision. But as most physicist Wheeler is basing his > view on an information theoretical view and fails on establishing the > reflective phenomenological basis, which that is so foundational to > Peirce's pragmaticist semiotics and view of the "natural light of > reasoning". > > J.A. Wheeler (1990). "Information, physics, Quantum: The search for > links", pp. 3-29 in W.H. Zurek (Ed.). Complexity, entropy and the physics > of information. Vol. VIII in Santa Fe Institute, Studies in the Sciences of > complexity. Addison Wesley publishing Company. > > Best > > Søren > > Fra: Catherine Legg [ <cl...@waikato.ac.nz> mailto:cl...@waikato.ac.nz > <cl...@waikato.ac.nz>] > Sendt: 16. juni 2014 07:09 > Til: Søren Brier; Gary Richmond; g...@gnusystems.ca > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > Hi all, > > I'm very behind on this thread, but have been reading and enjoying it. I > just haven't had the chance to pull my thoughts together enough to post. > > First of all, a big thank you to Søren for starting us off with such > wonderfully erudite postings - even including bibliographies which are a > resource for all of us to keep and refer to in the future! > > I have a bit of background knowledge of world religion and certain > spiritual traditions, but have certainly learned quite a bit more through > this thread - about key ideas in Buddhism, Dogen, St John of the Cross, and > more. > > Totally agree with you Søren about the way the phenomenological tradition > has done useful ground work for this area of philosophy but is still > regarded with suspicion by the 'mainstream'. > > Thank you to those (Gary R, Gary F and Søren spring to mind) who were > willing to describe a little of their own mystical (or otherwise spiritual) > experiences in this public forum. This kind of candour and trust is what > makes philosophy a truly enriching exercise, and peirce-l a valuable > forum. > > Gary F I was very interested in the way you highlighted the role of the > *natural light of reason* in Peirce's philosophy as giving him a > distinctive take on these questions. I'm very interested in that as I'm > still pursuing iconic signification as a kind of direct 'seeing' to break > the deadlock of pointless attempts at discursive explanations in current > epistemology. > > Eugene I loved what you said about 'naturalistic' philosophy relying on a > "subnatural conception of nature". Very good. > > I wonder if the thread has paid enough attention to what Peirce was saying > in some of the quotes that were posted about his cosmology being > *hyperbolic* (i.e. evolutionary), and the mode of evolution being jumping > into the fray of life and testing hypotheses. This would distinguish > Peirce's views from both Christianity and Buddhism wouldn't it? > > Cheers, Cathy > > From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb....@cbs.dk <sb....@cbs.dk> ] > Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 5:44 a.m. > To: Stephen C. Rose; Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > 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 <stever...@gmail.com>] > Sendt: 1. juni 2014 20:16 > Til: Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Cc: 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 > > Søren > > Fra: stevenzen...@gmail.com [ <stevenzen...@gmail.com> > mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com <stevenzen...@gmail.com>] På vegne af > Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Sendt: 31. maj 2014 01:19 > Til: Søren Brier > Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Kathrine Elizabeth Lorena Johansson; Claudia > Jacques (c...@claudiajacques.org); Elisabeth Sørup; Seth Miller; Leslie > Combs > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science > and religion: text 1 > > 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 > . > > > > > ------------------------------ > Professor John Collier > colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South > Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > Http://web.ncf.ca/collier > <http://web.ncf.ca/collier> > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > ------------------------------ > Professor John Collier > colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South > Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > Http://web.ncf.ca/collier > <http://web.ncf.ca/collier> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
