Mazdaysna and pragmatism (was: Realism and constructivism)

Exactly!!!
Peirce is the giant of American philosophy, without him there would have been no American pragmatism, no John Dewey and consequently no Barack Obama either.
The important thing to stress here on Ushta is of course that pragmatism is perfectly compatible with Zarathushra and with Mazdayasna. We also realise that there is an inside and an outside, but we do not seem them as two sides struggling with each other (a superior spirit trying to fight an inferior material world) but as equally sacred, important and complementary (Ahura is the outside and Mazda the inside of a combined world which manifests the immanence of Ahura Mazda).
Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/31 special_kain

I agree!!!
After Kant there were also Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger - with
pragmatism lying exactly inbetween realism and constructivism. So
while there's a mind-independent reality, all we have are socially
made and intersubjectively shared signs to describe and deal with that
mind-independent reality. According to Peirce, there are three (rather
than only two) aspects: the representamen (the form which the sign
takes), the interpretant (the sense made of the sign) and the object
(to which the sign refers). So we're living within signs or a
continuity of signs, and every thought is a sign. While many
philosophers state that there would be neither exit nor reality,
Peirce was a lot more optimistic about creating more accurate and
better vocabularies in the long run.
To say that we're dealing with social constructs only doesn't do away
with "solid-as-a-rock" reality. And to say that there's a
mind-independent reality doesn't replace intersubjectivity with the
phantom of objectivity.
Peirce's semiotics is one of the most important achievements in the
history of philosophy.

Ushta,
Dino


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Correct!!!
>
> Immanuel Kant defined the very two same things as the noumenal
(realism) and
> the phenomenological (constructivism) already in the 18th century
and also
> saw them as two sides of the same coin. My colleague Jan Söderqvist
and I
> have constructed a similar but more up-to-date opposition of
eternalism vs
> mobilism which we discuss in depth in our forecoming work "The Global
> Empire" (published in Swedish in 2003). Our point is that there
never was
> any noumenal or phenomenological realities but that the two were always
> intertwined and that it is within their very confusion, when the two
worlds
> collide, that they both appear to us precisely as eternalistic (the
fixed
> world of phenomena or particles in physics) and mobilistic (the
ever-chaning
> world of noumenal intensities, the equivalent being fields in physics).
>
> For Zarathushtra the two things are of equal importance and striking the
> balance between the two is what is important for us as human beings. We
> could even go so far as to say that Ahura is the mobilistic and noumenal
> character of realism and that Mazda is the eternalistic and phenomenal
> character of constructivism.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander