It's not called breakfast at noon. I am wearing black socks. During the Korean War my dad would say that he had to wear his blue uniform. I would say that it wasn't blue but black. I have it stored away. There's nothing blue about it.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 9:28 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike and Eric, > > > > I have deleted Jon from this thread because I have reason to believe is > bores him. > > > > I woke up this morning with my own version of the pragmaticist maxim. > > > > *The thing is just all the evidence of the thing. * > > > > And then I realized that there is a paradox hidden in that proposed > aphorism that irritates me. That makes me want to rewrite it perhaps as > follows: > > > > *The thing is a model inspired by all the evidence of the thing.* > > > > Now I have gotten very close to Peirce’s: > > > > *All thought is in signs.* > > > > My monism is pretty primitive, childlike, even. God aside, all that is > comes to > > us through experience, including of course, via experiences of other’s > experiences. Now, I quickly have to admit that some experience is built > into our bodies through natural selection. But then, I think, I am done > making concessions. > > > > I am perhaps guilty, in the first instance, of trying to keep an argument > alive. Perhaps I should have said I find the original hypothetical just > stupid. Whether we are talking of atoms or talking of flasks, we are > always talking of consequences, relations in experience. When we speak of > flasks, the web of experience to which we refer is teensy; when we speak of > atoms, it is vast. > > > > As you both should know by now, I find arguments between different kinds > of monists nugatory. Once one has declared oneself a monist, which kind > of monist one is, as Peirce would say, is “Just a matter of language.” > Arguing for one form or another, except as a matter of taste, demeans the > cause and reveals the contestants as closet dualists. I would not have > encouraged my student to “accuse” the tech of “materialism”. I find > switching back and forth between Holt’s materialism and Perry’s neutral > monism largely inconsequential. Like deciding whether to wear black or > dark blue socks today. > > > > What follows in your discussion is fascinating, and sounds like perhaps > the beginning of an essay. However, I don’t think it has much to do with > my admittedly primitive monism. Now that Mike is really retired, I would > love to hitch his wagon to our “Cognitive Psychology Sucks” star, either as > a collaborator or a worthy opponent. For reasons I cannot justify, I want > to continue to publsh. But ever since my first success (which seems > miraculous in retrospect) I have been unable to hitch Mike’s wagon to any > star at all. I am not sure he shares (you share) Eric’s and my pitiably > narcissitic desire to see our names in academic journals. Indeed, I am not > even sure that Eric will share that desire, now that he has been promoted > to God at OMB. > > > > So now I am going to have some breakfast. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:51 PM > *To:* 'Eric Charles' <[email protected]> > *Cc:* 'M. D. Bybee' <[email protected]>; 'Jon Zingale' < > [email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not > well understood the issues, even from the start. So much of subsequent > characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how > to > > relate it to what I believe. As understand the three of us, Mike is > trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce > position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to > understand Peirce insofar as he agrees with James. But I cannot even > follow those usual themes through the present discussion. > > > > Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me. Of course the web of > terms employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad > network of knowledge concerning when things explode. And I suppose, > therefore, Mike might see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when > I stress the relation between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES > and bad consequences. I accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him > making it. > > > > Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be > careful so it doesn't happen. > Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if > certain experiences happen now. > Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... > yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under > certain circumstances in the future, *but the chemical reaction and the > damage it could cause are well known facts.* > > > > I never really understood how the words real and facts are working in this > hypothetical and why the Labtech thinks that their safety, in the instant, > is better guaranteed by knowing about atoms, than by knowing to keep the > two flasks separate. > > > > As for the rest, I am completely lost. I really need to pull it out into > a single document and study the damn thing. I am torn between an impulse > to capitalize on Mike’s participation and the fact that I have much else on > my plate right now. > > > > Are we perhaps writing something here? If so, I will try to do my best > to put aside everything else and pitch in. > > > > I love you guys, honest! > > > > Nick > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM > *To:* Eric Charles <[email protected]> > *Cc:* M. D. Bybee <[email protected]>; Jon Zingale < > [email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Nick's monism kick > > > > I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence > no Internet. > > > > But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will get > back to you when I do not have to thumb my answer. > > N > > Sent from my Dumb Phone > > > On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Nick, > > You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought of > a good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting discussion, > which is why others are copied here.) > > > > Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been > tentatively including your current monism more and more in some of the > classes. When walking by the Chemistry labs, you recognize the voice of an > enthusiastic student you had last quarter,, and you start to ease drop. The > conversation is as follows: > > Lab tech: Be careful with that! If it mixes with the potassium solution, > it can become explosive, we would have to evacuate the building. > Student: What do you mean? > Lab tech: If the potassium mixes with chlorides at the right ratio, then > we are *probably* safe while it is in solution, but if it dries up, it is a > hard-core explosive and it wouldn't take much to level the whole building. > We would have to take that threat seriously, and evacuate the building > until I made the solution safe. > Student: Oh, a predictions about future experiences, I like those! > Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be > careful so it doesn't happen. > Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if > certain experiences happen now. > Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... > yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under > certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the > damage it could cause are well known facts. Look, man, if you aren't here > to learn how to be safe with the chemicals, then maybe you should just > leave. > Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!? > You know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's > experiences all the way down! > > Listening in, you can tell that the student is taking this line based on > your influence, because it sounds like things they were kinda-sorta > starting to grock in your class. > > How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like > the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended > message gone awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech > under the same circumstances? > > > > > > > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
