Thanks. For me love is more what you reject and affirm. Reject hurt harm and fear and you are poised to live decently. Affirm DIY -- recognizing the necessary difference among spirits-material persons as they engage in their playing out of freedom. I see everyone this way. Everything anyone does is a form of love. Some just happen to be hurt, harm and fear.
Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK <https://t.co/ywLbuOu5NX> Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83 <https://t.co/UQ2Q6m1e7G> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:56 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Stephen, list, > > I did not find your post offensive. I think it is a valuable thesis, that > the concept of God is sometimes too much complexified. The same, I > sometimes guess, applies to the concepts of money and sexuality: What > "God", "money", and "sex" have in common is ontologically, that it is good > for one to have it, and deontologically, that it should be shared. I guess > it might be a bad move in reality (history) and theory, to both construct > complexes as reaction products of these three topics, and also to give > either of them a surplus meaning, including the other two. Examples: > Calvinism, I think, did a divination of money. Neoliberalism, social > darwinism, and marxism too, by naturalizing economy. Baghwan/Oshoism and > pietism built complexes between sex and religion, either by > overliberalizing or overlimitating sexuality. In the western cultures, I > think, money is divinated, and sexuality is economized. > I think it is good sometimes to attempt a deconstruction of these > complexes, to see whether they are justified or malconstructions. > I guess, that deconstruction of complex collusions might put the emphasis > back to the natural commonities well-being and sharing, and that acceptance > of these commonities for values is love: Let God be God, economy economy, > and sex sex. Have it and share it. Love is not merely sexual, but also > material and religious. This was just expressing a vague sketch based on > impression. > > Helmut > > 20. Mai 2019 um 02:33 Uhr > "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > I said the two words you cite and they were repeated but I assume I am the > one addressed. I am deeply sorry where offense has been taken. I regard > every human being as beyond judgment and judging others as a futile and > uncalled for activity. > > . Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK > <https://t.co/ywLbuOu5NX> Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83 > <https://t.co/UQ2Q6m1e7G> > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 4:53 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> Again I read, "Enough already." >> >> Indeed. Enough already of blocking the way of inquiry. If you disagree >> with someone's interpretation of something posted to this list, then say so >> and give your reasons. That ought to be sufficient. >> >> If you aren't interested in a threaded topic, don't read in that thread. >> No one's going to miss you. >> >> If you aren't at all interested in what some particular list member has >> to say, delete his or her posts before commenting on them, perhaps even >> before reading them. No one will know or care. >> >> The lack of tolerance that I as list moderator have recently seen here is >> simply not acceptable in this forum. In my view, such a lack of tolerance >> reflects badly on the character of the intolerant person and not at all on >> the person harshly treated. >> >> As Joe Ransdell, the founder of Peirce-L wrote in "How the Forum Works" >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM >> >> >> [Forum members expect] that those who are at odds with one another. . . >> be both generous in their tolerance of the other when excess occurs and in >> their readiness to make verbal amends when excess is imputed to them. *When >> in doubt, apologize: you are never diminished by it *[emphasis in the >> original]*.* >> >> >> While I believe some apologies are in order, I don't really expect to see >> them. I do, however, believe that certain folk here should read over *their >> own *recent comments to see if, upon reflection, they think they might >> have shown intolerance toward the views and/or scholarship of another >> forum member. If the answer is that they do* not* believe that they did, >> then that is that, and there is nothing more to be said. But if the answer >> is that they must admit *to themselves* that they indeed did express >> some intolerance, then that person at least ought to consider if they want >> to see that intolerance (or pique, or insults, etc.) published in >> perpetuity on the Internet as an expression of their character. If not, >> they should simply refrain from conducting themselves in such an >> inappropriate manner in the future. As Ben Udell wrote here over a decade >> ago, "Peirce-L is a salon, not a saloon." >> >> I sincerely hope that no one here will attempt to justify untoward >> conduct on the list, although I can imagine that a list member or so will >> claim that I'm "scolding" folk here. Nonsense. Scold yourself if the >> uncomfortable shoe fits. Everyone should feel safe and free to express any >> Peirce-related thoughts that they have in the Peirce e-forum. That is* >> all* I'm saying. >> >> So, in a word, enough of blocking the way of inquiry; enough of >> intolerance. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Gary Richmond (writing as forum moderator) >> >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: >> >>> Gary F, >>> >>> Thank you for a post that doesn't go off the "deep end" by attributing >>> arguments to Peirce that he never stated, implied, ot even hinted. >>> >>> GF >>> > any knowledge that any mind can have of God must consist of >>> > predicates attributed to the real Subject we call “God” — which >>> > name, says Peirce, is different from all other proper names because >>> > it is definable. Every other proper name is an index of an entity >>> > who, at some time in some universe of discourse, has existed in >>> > some embodied form, and the prerequisite for knowledge of that >>> > subject is collateral experience of it. >>> >>> I would just add that Peirce also considered proper names, such >>> as Hamlet or Napoleon, for which collateral experience with the >>> individual is impossible (EP 2:493). For both of them, our only >>> source collateral experience is in what we read or hear. >>> >>> The same could be said about God. For most people, knowledge of >>> God comes from the same kind of sources as our knowledge of Hamlet >>> or Napoleon. Even people who can remember any definition from any >>> catechism depend mainly on stories they read or heard. >>> >>> GF >>> > If there is no evidence, no means of testing a hypothesis >>> > inductively, there is no knowledge, no matter how fallible >>> > or provisional we take it to be. >>> >>> Yes. Jon's so-called proof is a hypothesis about the existence >>> and actions of something that conforms to some definition. The >>> same conclusion could be derived by replacing the name 'God' with >>> the name of any deity, demiurge, or monster. Benevolence is not a >>> prerequisite. >>> >>> GF >>> > I hope that will suffice, and is sufficiently focused on the >>> > semiotic/logical/cognitive issues, because I’d rather not go >>> > any further into theology than I have here. >>> >>> I very strongly agree. And I'll repeat Stephen's point: >>> "Enough already." >>> >>> John >> >> ----------------------------- 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 .
