I make one thing I say here clear. When I say "rejection of
scripture," I really must say "rejection of the literal interpretation
of scripture." Many of these radical Unitarian's - if not all of them
at the time - still considered themselves "Christian." (01)
Steven (02)
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thank you Anny. That is an interesting interpretation of my position.
>
> As will be made clear in the book, for me a religion is simply a set
> of ideas such that we cannot look upon the world without consideration
> of them. In this sense, science is my religion.
>
> I should make it clear that I am personally indifferent to the notion
> of "God." But I understand its context, the motivation and origin for
> its use. In my next lecture, however, I will speak about the view and
> motivations of Benjamin Peirce, his son Charles, and the attempt by
> them and other radical Unitarians to re-conceive the notion of God in
> scientific terms.
>
> But it should be clear that this attempt, led by Benjamin Peirce, from
> influences and peer encouragements that can be traced back to Descarte
> through Malebranche and the Unitarian logical challenge to divided
> conceptions (i.e. Trinity), and articulated in his book "Ideality in
> the physical sciences" is rightly paralleled with the positivist and
> existentialist movement in Europe during the nineteenth century.
>
> In my view it is a direct parallel to the existentialist challenge to
> historical conceptions of divinity. I describe Benjamin as a "cautious
> positivist" in that he argued for true positivism (that science may be
> universally applied) but did not want science to lose touch with the
> deeper cosmological issues and issues of "quality." (In this he, and
> the others of his ilk in and around Harvard, were thwarted by
> conservative social forces and subsequently Unitarianism lost its
> way).
>
> These same motivations led in Europe to a concern over the social
> implications of the failure of past conceptions (in the rise of
> science and rejection of scripture) and in the absence of an
> alternative. A concern expressed in terms that "God is dead."
>
> The social pragmatism of this Harvard centered group was to place our
> concerns over the nature of our existence clearly into the domain of
> science and to re-conceive of the notion of God in scientific terms. A
> view articulated by Charles in his "Neglected Argument." I've been
> saying that it is a sort of atheism without the "a," but this is not
> quite fair I think since atheism is most generally a form of
> materialism. This move acknowledges the common ground in the inquiry
> of science and theology on the deeper issues, i.e, the intimate human
> inquiry into the nature of the world and our place in it.
>
> Anyhow, this narrative has unfolded before me during the development
> of my work and provides the historical context and precedence for it.
> It is discussed in one chapter of the forthcoming book and I will
> speak of it (working from this chapter) on January 15th when I lecture
> at Stanford on the life and work of Charles Sanders Peirce. This
> lecture will place Charles in this broader context. As you know, 2014
> is the centenary of Charles' death.
>
> For others, if you have not yet caught my lecture last month, you can
> see it here: http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M The transcript of the
> lecture is available as a book review here:
> https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409
>
> Again, my thanks for your kind comments.
>
> Best regards,
> Steven
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Anny Ballardini
> <anny.ballardini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Steven Ericsson-Zenith,
>>
>> I finally had some time to follow this interesting presentation of your
>> book. And if I understand properly, which is also connected with some of
>> your previous contributions on this list, the fact that you want to show
>> that light is static is an hermetic statement that God exists in an
>> ever-present presence. And as far as I can remember, you will be able to
>> show mathematically your supposition. This draws back to your previous
>> commitment as a religious member of our community. You also say that "new
>> ideas are not familiar," but as you know, new ideas are the bread of
>> artists, and this goes well along with what research is supposed to be. The
>> only difference in-between artistic and scientific research is that the
>> latter requires an armamentarium of historical information (precise
>> quotations, previous theories) that artistic performance does not have. That
>> all belongs to the digestion of art criticism.
>> I am wondering in this moment about Leonardo. He simply skipped all previous
>> history and created on his own in a gut-lived process that put himself in a
>> competition with his own self. Those who play an instrument or paint,
>> perfectly know what I am talking about.
>> After this book, which I can see as a major contribution to the scientific
>> community, maybe you will finally be able to get to pure research, your own.
>>
>> What might be difficult here for people like me who do not have extended
>> studies in mathematics or physics, are the extended drawbacks to these
>> specialized sciences.
>>
>> Anyhow, congratulations, and let us know when the next lecture comes up.
>>
>> [I have been absent from this list because of several commitments. The major
>> one probably being the relapse of my 9 year old niece into leukemia. I am
>> shocked by the way she is being treated.]
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Anny
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please forgive my cross-posting.
>>>
>>> The video of my Nov. 13th lecture is now available on YouTube,
>>>
>>> http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M
>>>
>>> it includes the first chapter of my forthcoming book. The full
>>> transcript is now also available as a book preview here.
>>>
>>> https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409
>>>
>>> In a follow up lecture on January 15th I will speak about the life and
>>> work of Charles Sanders Peirce. In this lecture I will place Charles
>>> in the broader context of intellectual developments in and around the
>>> formation of Harvard University.
>>>
>>> Best 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but
>>> to list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
>>> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dott.ssa Anny Ballardini, MFA, PhD.
>>
>> http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
>> http://www.lulu.com/content/5806078
>> http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html
>>
>> I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
>> star!
>> Friedrich Nietzsche
>>
>> « Stulta est clementia, cum tot ubique
>> vatibus occurras, periturae parcere chartae »
>> Giovenale
>>
>> Professionista di cui alla Legge n. 4 del 14 gennaio 2013, pubblicata nella
>> GU n. 22 del 26/01/2013
>>
>> Freiberuflerin laut Gesetz Nr. 4 vom 14. Jänner 2013, veröffentlicht im
>> Amtsblatt Nr. 22 vom 26.1.2013 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (04)
|