Joe,
You wrote:
I do
recall Peirce saying that this was a matter that should be settled by
experimental observation.
There are several passages where Peirce says this sort of thing, for
example:
CP 1.91 But although science cannot infer any
particular violation of the ordinary course of nature, it may very well
be that it should find evidence that such violations are so frequent
and usual that this fact is itself a part of the ordinary course of
nature. For that reason, it is perfectly proper that science should
inquire, for example, into the evidences of the fulfillment of prayers,
etc. That is something open to experimental inquiry; and until such
inquiry has been instituted nobody is entitled to any opinion whatever,
or any bias, as to its results.
Of course this is simply another version of not standing in the way of
inquiry, his reminding scientists especially that they of all people
should keep an open mind in all such matters. On the other hand, such
research was personally "distasteful" to Peirce.
CP 6.518. . . . .As I say, the inquiry into
efficacity is distasteful to me because that is not the motive of my
prayers. Still, I should like to have an inquiry instituted into the
matter.
But looking more closely at actual prayer itself, perhaps at least
"the state of mind" that is "the soul's
consciousness of its relation to God" constitutes "
precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God" (but note that
praying for "specific things" is held to be "childish. . . yet
innocent")
CP 6.516 .. . .I do not see why prayer may not
be
efficacious, or if not the prayer exactly, the state of mind of which
the prayer is nothing more than the _expression_, namely the soul's
consciousness of its relation to God, which is nothing more than
precisely the pragmatistic meaning of the name of God; so that, in that
sense, prayer is simply calling upon the name of the Lord. To pray for
specific things, not merely for the {epioution}, bread, but that it may
be better baked than yesterday's, is childish, of course; yet innocent.
But besides the matter of the efficacy of prayer (Gene Halton's
comments on the communal & participatory nature of Native American
prayer perhaps suggest a way of looking at this which may be more to
the point of our contemporary concerns), there are other reasons for
prayer according to Peirce. For one thing, he notes that perhaps even
the most prayerful of us yet spend relatively little time in the, shall
we say, numinal realm so that "religious ideas never come to form the
warp and woof of
our mental constitution, as do social ideas."
CP 6.437. Seldom do we pass a single hour of
our waking lives away from
the companionship of men (including books); and even the thoughts of
that solitary hour are filled with ideas which have grown in society.
Prayer, on the other hand, occupies but little of our time; and, of
course, if solemnity and ceremony are to be made indispensable to it
(though why observe manners toward the Heavenly Father that an earthly
father would resent as priggish?) nothing more is practicable.
Consequently, religious ideas never come to form the warp and woof of
our mental constitution, as do social ideas. They are easily doubted,
and are open to various reasons for doubt, which reasons may all be
comprehended under one, namely, that the religious phenomenon is
sporadic, not incessant.
Whatever one may think of the move, Peirce is also in many places
concerned with overcoming what he calls here "the barbaric conception
of personal identity" and prayer can assist in identifying the
individual with the All, that "pure and infinite Self" (Vedanta).
CP 7572. There is still another direction in
which the barbaric conception of personal identity must be broadened. A
Brahmanical hymn begins as follows: "I am that pure and infinite Self,
who am bliss, eternal, manifest, all-pervading, and who am the
substrate of all that owns name and form." This expresses more than
humiliation, -- the utter swallowing up of the poor individual self in
the Spirit of prayer. All communication from mind to mind is through
continuity of being. A man is capable of having assigned to him a rôle
in the drama of creation, and so far as he loses himself in that rôle,
-- no matter how humble it may be, -- so far he identifies himself with
its Author
But finally the whole point of prayer in the context of the church and
religion is suggested in this profound passages, which says in a few
sentences what I attempted to say in my earlier post in this thread,
and suggest that Peirce's position apropos religion is neither naive
nor "otherworldly" (indeed "Fears of hell and hopes of
paradise have no such reference; they are matters all sane men confess
they know nothing about") Rather, the "active motive" is " the prospect
of leaving
behind. . . fertile seeds of desirable fruits here on earth."
CP 6.451. The raison d'être of a church is to
confer upon men a life broader than their narrow personalities, a life
rooted in the very truth of being. To do that it must be based upon and
refer to a definite and public experience. Fears of hell and hopes of
paradise have no such reference; they are matters all sane men confess
they know nothing about. Even for the greatest saints, the active
motives were not such hopes and fears, but the prospect of leaving
behind them fertile seeds of desirable fruits here on earth. It is not
the question whether miracles and answers to prayer are abstractly
possible. The question is whether they are appreciable constituents of
human experiences, worth taking into account in comparison with those
great facts of life that no man either doubts or ever will doubt.
Gary
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I'm glad you
understood the jocular intention, Gary. I was signaling as
much in referring to myself as a "heathen", which is a pejorative term
one would not normally use in a self-description. In fact, what
occasioned my remark was merely the impertinent fact that I had
recently viewed a couple of the episodes in the HBO series "Deadwood",
in which Native Americans are referred to as "heathen," and I had been
idly reflecting on the question of what Peirce thought about Native
Americans (American "Indians"). I don't recall encountering a
single allusion to the topic in anything of his that I have read.
After posting that message, I realized that the jocular intent
might be misunderstood and I might well be offending somebody for no
good reason. So I looked up "heathen" in -- you guessed it! -- the
Century Dictionary, and it seems to have more or less the same
extension as "pagan", and be similar in origin: "heathen" seems to
have come from the use of "heath", which originally referred to an area
of nature which has not been "civilized" by European standards of
civilization, hence still infested by nature gods and demons (as the
non-heathen would regard them.) A somewhat more restricted usage has
it referring to any people who do not recognize the deity of the
Hebrew, Christian, or Muslim religions. None of which is of any
apparent relevance to us here.
It is true, though,
that Peirce was Christian in some sense, and it is certainly not out of
place for you to reflect here upon what that might mean. I don't wish
to pursue it further myself at the moment, but I will say that, as
regards the efficacy of prayer, I do recall Peirce saying that this was
a matter that should be settled by experimental observation. Does praying for rain tend to result in
rain? People regularly pray for rain here in West Texas -- indeed,
"heathens" in tribal dress are sometimes invited for the purpose in
order to make sure that all bases are touched -- and I dare say one
could actually check out the results of that, though I don't recall
anyone ever actually doing so and reporting on what the record shows
-- perhaps because that might involve certain complications in the
cases where the rain comes in the form of tornadic storms! The problem
of the Sorcerer's Apprentice! (Come to think of it, suspicions might
then arise about Lubbock harboring Sodom or Gomorrah-like
tendencies, deserving of the harsh justice of Yahweh, since the
city was hit pretty hard by a twister that ripped through the center of
town some thirty years ago!)
But enough of that.
Peirce recognized a more elevated form of prayer than this, in any
case, and your comments were intended more seriously, and I don't wish
to discourage exploration of his religious thinking, especially in view
of the seeming overlap of the religious and the philosophical in the
Neglected Argument, for example. But I'm not interested in pursuing
the topic further myself at this time and will leave it to you and
others to carry it further.
Joe Ransdell
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, January 13, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject:
[peirce-l] Peircean prayer, was: Re: one list archive now working
Joe,
Thanks for the update on Gmane.You also wrote:
I don't myself believe in the power of prayer, unfortunately;
but for those of you who make up for the deficiencies of sceptics like me,
let me request that you include that search engine in your daily prayers
because we certainly could use a good search engine after these many years
of deprivation! (And bear in mind, too, that Peirce was himself a Christian
of sorts, as you doubtless know, so your prayers will not be wasted on
benefiting heathens like me in ways we do not deserve!)
But Peirce was not an orthodox and certainly not a "naive" Christian so
that the efficacy of prayer--if it were considered at all- would
certainly not be anything like the quasi-magical power you are pointing
to, but rather would tend toward the real influence of ideas,
the influence, for example, of many seeing the truth together,
whether it be in some corner of science or some corner of Manhattan
when, as Peirce once related, a convention of young Christian people
hit the town and transformed the City in some (to him) palpably sweet
and uplifting way for a weekend (the truth is it's mainly been the
Jewish influence on New York which has uplifted this town, for
just a few examples: the great Jewish philanthropic and social agencies
created here, a vast number of artistic and cultural and intellectual
enterprises of all sorts---from NYU to the New York Times--originating
here, etc., etc. and which have decidedly answered many of the
prayers for generations of New Yorkers). I think Peirce might have
conceived of prayer (if he concerned himself much with it at all, &
I am not aware of his discussing the matter) in this sort of way: as
the power of symbols, say, Truth and Justice, to influence &
effect our lives (even as we confront lies and injustice).
But my main point now is that it is possible to be a Christian and not
subscribe to the dogmas & naivetes of certain forms of
Christianity. Church history, it's true as many have noted, suggests a
tendency for much institutional religion and many theological
interpretations to exclude (and worse, persecute, etc)as Peirce also
pointed out, And not all would agree with me that one can even be a
Christian in this "looser sense" of not doctrinally conforming (perhaps
your "Christian of sorts"?) For example, in at least one of his letters
to Kenneth Ketner (their correspondence collected as A Thief of
Peirce) Percy comments that Peirce was not really a Christian in
the sense that some Roman Catholics might say one must accept
certain doctrines in order to be one at all. I don't agree with Percy,
of course (and there are certainly Catholics who would join me in what
I'm arguing here), while it does appear that Peirce was certainly not a
dogmatic Christian, as I am not, and as indeed any number of professed
Christians are not. We would rather not have the naive fundamentalist
wing stand for the Christianity of some of the others of us. I think
it's always been possible to be a "different kind" of (non-conformist)
Christian, as in another era Meister Eckhart seems to have been in his
very different way. Finally, one may even recite, as Peirce did, the
Apostle's Creed with others in church on Sunday, yet conceive of the
universe perhaps more along the lines suggested by this extraordinary
analysis of Edwina Taborsky
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/taborsky/p-enetab.htm
than along the lines of Genesis (btw, I know nothing at all about ET's
religious views or lack thereof; I just happen to be reading her
paper) But this standing shoulder to shoulder with others confessing a
belief in a synechastic & agapastic Power is not hypocrisy since
those ancient symbols are now interpreted differently, that is,
semeiotically and evolutionarily, but with no less a sense of the
agapastic tendency of the cosmos, and of our important role in
furthering that (were we ever together to begin to
realize our human vocation adequately and again--or, rather,
finally--see our world as, yes, an intelligible but also a sacred
place). This kind of evolutionary religion is probably only now even
really possible, or rather, it is my hope that these agapastic
tendencies are real and, so, can be realized.. Not that the quietistic
Eastern religions don't have much to offer us aesthetically &
meditationally, nor that the tribal ones might not yet help bring us
into much deeper contact with nature (Eugene Halton's point: "To walk
in beauty"), but so far Christianity is the only religion with
evolutionary and agapastic potential (this is in brief my argument
contra Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian, I suppose :-) and
why I am, and why I believe Peirce was a Christian.and not a heathen (I
take this to mean, someone without a prayer :-)
Joe, I know you spoke jocularly and I've made much too much of this.
Also, I think you know how I detest discussing religious issues (and
only do so when provoked :-), so if you care to respond to these
ramblings, I'll leave you with the last word.
Gary
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Auke and list:
Yes, the Gmane Archive in particular seems to be what is wanted, though
there are still a couple of things to be determined about it before I am
willing to conclude to that. I'll say what those are in a moment but let me
explain first what I see as a possible advantage in it in addition to its
usefulness as a searchable archive, namely, its possible use as the primary
interface for the list for those who want to use it that way, because one
can post to the list from the Gmane interface, both in replying and when
starting up a new thread, so that it can take the place of the lyris email
interface without the latter being simply abandoned. This can be done in
either of two ways: (1) one way would be to have a browser bookmark or
"favorites" link (URL button) on one's computer desktop that, when clicked,
takes you directly to the Gmane Archive, where the latest message is waiting
with the recent ones available as listed in threaded form in the panel above
it. (2) The other way, would be to bring it up as a newsgroup folder that
appears on the same folder panel as one's email messages folders appear.
When you open it up you then get the same sort of two-panel above-and-below
layout as if you go to Gmane.
I think, though, that using a button link to go directly to Gmane in your
browser instead of pulling it up as a newsgroup mail item is probably
preferable, but I am not yet certain about that. One always has to use
these things for a while in order to understand what is truly convenient.
But I like the convenience of the drop-down panel of options that appears on
the upper right of the upper panel with the threads on it.
Let me make this completely explicit to avoid confusing those not yet
acquainted with it: Click on the following URL (and make a browser bookmark
for your desktop when it takes you to your destination):
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce
This takes you to the The Gmane Archive where you will find the screen split
into two panels, above and below. In the panel below there is the latest
posted message. In the panel above there is the list of messages previously
posted in threaded form. You can click on any of those lines and a new
window will be opened with that message in it. Back to what you find at
first, though, you can change the threaded representation of the past
messages into a list organized by date only, with the most recent one listed
at the top of the list.
Now, most of the options available to you are to be found listed in a
dropdown panel located on the upper panel, which is labeled
"--action--".
It should have been labeled simply as "options", in my opinion, but,
anyway, click that and you get a list of possible things to do: if you want
to reply to the message which is presently appearing in the bottom panel,
which is the most recent message posted, you click on
"Followup"
They should have labeled that as "reply"! -- but, okay, clicking that will
then give you a window suitable for composing a reply. If, on the other
hand, you want to start a new thread, click instead on the option labeled
"Post".
That will give you a window suitable for posting a message for a new thread
instead.
There are other options as well. I suggest trying each of them out in turn
to see what they get you. One of things you will find is that there are
still other interfaces available! To avoid confusion I won't go into them
here other than to say that although some of these alternative interfaces
are more attractive than the basic interface I am presently describing, they
do not provide a panel with a threaded or chronological list of messages on
it. Hence they are not as useful. But you can decide for yourself whether
to work with one of them instead.
Finally, if you look at the bottom of the lower panel you will find several
more options, the most important of which is a search window for typing in a
string for a Boolean search of the archive. I leave it to you to use that.
One caveat, though: the search panel works only for messages that have been
indexed, and they are not indexed immediately. Apparently, the practice is
to re-index the entire archive once a day or so, which is apparently
necessary in order to get the latest messages integrated with the rest in a
common indexing scheme. It seems to me there should be an easier way, but
what do I know? Anyway, that means that you might have to wait for a day or
so to insure that the latest messages are going to be called up in the
search. Now, the truth is that I don't know how well the search engine
actually works since the latest messages haven't been indexed yet, unless
that engine has cranked up since the last time I tried it. But, assuming it
really is a good index engine, this is not too much of an inconvenience
since you usually know what the most recent messages relevant to your
search topic is anyway. It is pulling up the older ones that is the most
important. I don't myself believe in the power of prayer, unfortunately;
but for those of you who make up for the deficiencies of sceptics like me,
let me request that you include that search engine in your daily prayers
because we certainly could use a good search engine after these many years
of deprivation! (And bear in mind, too, that Peirce was himself a Christian
of sorts, as you doubtless know, so your prayers will not be wasted on
benefiting heathens like me in ways we do not deserve!)
Joe Ransdell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Auke van Breemen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:58 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: one list archive now working
Joe,
Nice job, good tool!
I did test the posting facility in gmane and tried out what happens if a
non subscriber to the list uses this facility by using an address that
is different from the one I am known by in the list.
In five minutes I received a message:
Gmane:
This is a non-public mailing list, which means that you have to
subscribe to the list to post to it. If you're already subscribed to
the list, Gmane can forward this message to the list if you respond to
this message. If not, you should sign up to the mailing list first,
and then respond to this message, or just forget about it.
----
I think this is exactly the behavior that we want. Another nice feature
of gmane is that in the same roll down menu, the item 'information'
provides the info needed to subscribe.
Auke
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: donderdag 12 januari 2006 3:07
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: one list archive now working
The "official" new archive for PEIRCE-L is now functional,
though I have not
yet managed to import the old messages from the lyris
listserver. But it is
now working nonetheless, and it can be accessed in several
different ways,
but to avoid needless confusion I will refer to one of these as the
"official archive", which is also called "The Gmane Archive",
and is to be
found at the following URL: :
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce
The second access to that material is at the address I
provided in the
previous message on the topic several days ago, which I will
refer to as
"The Mail Archive" (because that is actually its name).
Think of it as a
backup for the official archive, which is The Gmane Archive.
The URL for it
is:
http://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l%40lyris.ttu.edu/
If you go to both you will find that The Mail Archive, the
back up archive,
actually has a number of messages in it that are not (yet) in
The Gmane
Archive. That is because I accidentally got it setup first,
not knowing
what I was doing. But they will both be filled soon with
what must be
many hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of old messages
imported from the
lyris listserver, which has been archiving all along but is
so awkward to
use that it might as well not exist.
There is more to be said about this, but I don't want to
induce confusion by
doing so in the present message. I will wait until a better
time to get
into further detail on it. Hopefully, this is the sort of
confusion that
attends progress..
Joe Ransdell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:42 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] one list archive now working
There is now an archive for the list that is working, and a
second one that
apparently still needs to be debugged but should be in
working order soon.
The URL for the web-based version of the one that is now working is:
http://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l%40lyris.ttu.edu/
You might want to check it out but I should add that this is
NOT the main
one but a second one provided for purposes of redundancy, I
guess. It is
called "The Mail Archive". The main one is called "The Gmane
Archive"" and
is not yet functional for some reason, though it is supposed
to be. I'll
give you a URL for it as soon as it gets functional. It will
be available
both as a website and as a newsgroup that you can feed into your mail
program so that it shows up as a folder there. As soon as it
is working
right I will make an arrangement for importing into both of
them everything
in the lyris listserver that is presently available in that
all but unusable
archive there.
Joe Ransdell
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release
Date: 1/4/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release
Date: 1/4/2006
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release
Date: 1/4/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date:
1/12/2006
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
|