1. and 2. are deliberately ambiguous to allow inclusion of existing religions. Obviously, not all religions are scientific.
3. The definition is mine and I include the universal "basis of experience" (per my work) whose effects are unity in structure; i.e., the causal reason sense and response form, how they are unified and act together and across structure decisions are made. 4. Neither Benjamin nor James, see what I referred to as "the mind of God" in naive terms. Take what I said as a simple definition: "the mind of God is means no more or less than whatever science argues, where science includes the explanation of what Benjamin refers to as "spirituality" or "universal will." 5. This is really very simple. If the laws of nature are subject to small and sustainable (and universal) arbitrary changes as Charles suggests then necessity is dead (and, therefore, so is science). I certainly mean this as no "ad hominem" remark. This is what Charles argued, is it not? And, if it has an existential basis, it undermines necessity. I do, in fact, require necessity and I allow degrees of freedom in terms of "directional" forces. And this necessity is indeed the basis of Benjamin and James (mathematical) philosophy. It is also a principal part of much of Charles (philosophical) work. But Charles is concerned with Logic. Spontaneity and evolution of law appear to be an open speculation by Charles and related to his doctrine of fallibilism. I have not read enough to draw real conclusions. However, I do wonder if he has not been read wrongly and by it he means only to imply the progress of science, not that laws change in fact but only in science. Whenever he speaks of spontaneity is he simply be speaking of discovery. He argues, for example, that, as law (science?) progresses and is naturally refined, there is a movement toward a greater adherence to law until a point at which law is absolute. This suggests that spontaneity in his view is "merely" epistemic. This would certainly be redeeming and I hope that this is in fact the case, because I can make sense of that. Regards, Steven On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Steven - I have a few questions: > > 1) You wrote: "religion as science or science as religion". With this > rejection of the differentiation between religion and science - how do you > define this new approach? My understanding of religion is that it rests on > a priori axioms that are outside of the realm of objective experience and > empirical proof. My understanding of science is that its axioms are > fallible, and must rest on objective experience and empirical proof. How do > you deal with this conflict? > > 2) You wrote: "religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot > look upon the world without their consideration. But this is, in my view, a > weak description, for it does not define the source of the validity of this > 'set of ideas'. After all, the idea that the sun goes around the earth, the > idea that disease is caused by the anger of the recently dead - may indeed > be religious ideas, and are claimed as valid by 'the Will of God' but can > they also be scientific? > > 3) You wrote: "universal will. I have taken this to imply, in modern > terms, that we must scientifically consider the biophysics of sensation and > response." I find this an odd definition of 'universal will' - i.e., the > biophysics of sensation and response. What do these two kinetic and > mechanical forces (in Firstness and Secondness) have to do with Universal > Will which would have to include some element of a force beyond kinetics? > > 4) You wrote: "We must view science as "reading the mind of God" where > "God" means no more or less than whatever this full science offers". Again, > to equate 'mind' with 'whatever this full science offers' is a circular > and ambiguous definition. This 'full science' which seems to me from your > definitions, to be focused around mechanical forces doesn't seem to have a > thing to do with 'Mind'. Or have you defined Mind as mechanics? Your tactic > of defining something, eg, God, as X (as full science) doesn't validate > either science or the notion of God; it's a circular and thus fallacious > argument. > > 5) Then, your rather ad hominem argument for rejecting Charles Peirce's > view, is, by definition, invalid. You wrote: "It seems reasonable to > argue that Charles lacked the religious and scientific sophistication of > his brother and father. He certainly appears to lack the same deep > sensitivity." This is a conclusion without your providing any reasons. > Reasonable to whom? And what are those reasons? So far, your above argument > doesn't provide any such evidence. And 'religious and scientific > sophistication' and 'lacks the same deep sensitivity' are open and thus > empty assertions - for they also lack evidence. > > 6) You wrote: "I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for > spontaneity and evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in > dispute, but I am happy to listen to arguments" > > The above seems to include your definition of science, one of its axioms > being a rejection of sponteneity and evolution of laws. As has been pointed > out before, this suggests that your view of 'science' accepts a > deterministic, necessitarian and mechanical view of the world. This seems > to me at least, to be a rejection of Universal Will. And again, since your > definition of science (and you provide us with several - and not all are > equivalent) excludes spontaneity and evolution, then, it is beyond > argumentation. It is, not a fact, but a dogma for you. > > Edwina > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> > *To:* Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Steven Ericsson-Zenith > <ste...@iase.us> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:01 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] A System Of Analytic Mechanics > > Thank you for these comments Jerry. When I first came upon these works, > they also answered many questions for me. > > Of particular note is the strong undercurrent of what would later be known > as positivism, written at the time of Comte and in full awareness of > Comte's ideas. Yet they, Benjamin and James, by putting science first, and > in a more forgiving context perhaps than Comte, did not bring on the > Existential crisis but rather they re-conceived of religion as science or > science as religion. I argue that this is a unique circumstance in the > United States where the reconnection of religion was already underway > (although this movement seems to have reversed during the twentieth > century). > > If we accept religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot look > upon the world without their consideration, then we begin to understand the > approach. Benjamin, in his "Ideality of the physical sciences" goes to some > length to argue that science must consider the whole. It is he, in this > text, that first argues that science must not merely consider the easy. > > He intended this to mean that we must consider the notion of universal > will. I have taken this to imply, in modern terms, that we must > scientifically consider the biophysics of sensation and response. I will > accept challenges on this point because I understand that this may come > over as self-serving. I will note that there is more to be said on this > point in the light of the disruption of logical incompleteness. > > It seems reasonable to argue that Charles lacked the religious and > scientific sophistication of his brother and father. He certainly appears > to lack the same deep sensitivity. We may also note that in his Neglected > Argument he echoes his semeiotic triad in the context of the family's > beliefs. He is echoing his father's view of "God" and creation in Neglected > Argument. The "neglect" I now assume is, in fact, the neglect of his > father's argument. > > No scholar should consider my remarks to be "against" Charles. I accept > that we may differ in scholarly interpretations but I do not accept that we > may deny the facts. > > I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for spontaneity and > evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in dispute, but I am > happy to listen to arguments. > > Regards, > Steven > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < > jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: > >> Dear Steven, List: >> >> Thank you for posting these files prepared by CSP's brother and father. >> >> These files very definitely add support to your assertions concerning the >> familial logic entailments that are often reflected in CSP texts. >> >> It is most unfortunate that logicians and philosophers fail to consider >> or even acknowledge the magnitude of these familial entailments on CSP's >> texts. These entailments are readily apparent from a chemist's >> perspective. >> >> Perhaps I will comment a bit on these these texts at a later time after I >> have digested them a bit further. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: >> >> >> I am posting these files to enable the wider Peirce community to >> appreciate the environment and influences upon Charles. This is also an >> OCR'd searchable version of A System Of Analytic Mechanics - a treatise by >> Charles' father, Benjamin Peirce, and taught at Harvard. Prepared by me in >> the past few years. >> >> You will note in this text many of the ideas that you have come to >> attribute to Charles and you will note, while Peirce does not use the term >> "covariance" that this is precisely what he describes, anticipating >> Einstein's claims for the epistemic power of general covariance. >> >> The context of the work is Newtonian mechanics and recall that Peirce >> spent a good deal of time with the Celestial Mechanics of LaPlace, playing >> a major role in the translation by his mentor Nathaniel Bowditch. >> >> >> Benjamin Peirce - 1855 - A System Of Analytic Mechanics.pdf >> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-c2CVg9ZQsANld4b1JhQnNBQlE/edit?usp=drive_web> >> >> >> Regards, >> Steven >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
