I cut my teeth on craziness.
The following is a reply to a note sent to the Peirce List. I have copied the original note below.
I cut my teeth on craziness. First at NY State Psychiatric Institute with disturbed kids, second at Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge when Rappaport and Erikson were both there. I was able to attend the meetings and worked with some of the guests. And then I “majored” in religion and psychiatry at Union Theological Seminary and worked at St. Lukes counselling. I later became very partial to Psychosynthesis and the theoretical part of Roberto Assagioli’s thought. It was Assagioli whi provided some evidence of a higher self and moved be beyond a knee-jerk and confining Freudianism. None of this is very much but I am not unaware of the area. I would put my system right up there as a means of helping many people come to grips with their inner problems. I have done this naturally most of my life, but my system is so simple and transparent that it can be tested at once. It is in fact a psychological version of the triadic maxim in which the aim is actual action and actual expression. No one has expressed any interest in this but then again neither Peirce nor Wittgenstein enjoyed that much attention to their thinking. A few people that matter have appreciated me along the way. Binary thinking is the bane of politics and is confined to no party. The problems are as much political and social as they are psychological as we can tell now because Trump (being oddly complex in respect to 2 or 3) is affecting minds all over. Cheers, S
Original note:
Peirce, Wittgenstein and what cannot be said
Peirce is said to be a superficial and less than apt theologian. Not one of the things he is cited for. I think he and Wittgenstein are peas in a pod right down to their common reliance on, and iconoclasm toward, the natural sciences. It was Wittgenstein who noted the difficulty of dealing with what I have for years called the realm of mystery and supposition. He called it nonsense in a positive way. And I agree with those who say his reason was to protect ethics and religion.
As one with theological training who has gone far toward reconstructing a theology outside the camp, there being no antidote to banishment for career decisions such as fighting for reparations in the 60s and favoring Saul Alinsky, I think Peirce has made THE fundamental contribution needed not only for religion but for the world generally. That is triadic thinking understood as a means of making the unspeakable sayable and normative.
I have had no access to circles within the Peirce community and have been excluded and skewered by some for whatever reason. But I do want to make this point about Peirce and Wittgenstein. Though neither man was a theologian, together they are the future of any universal and nonviolent and ethically advanced religious thinking. The simplest way to say this is to say that binary thinking in any form when applied to Wittgenstein’s unsayable is anathema to progress while triadic thinking is the key to progress.
