Dear Soren, Charles, List: First, your post on your beliefs about the CSP and religion was, indeed, a very thoughtful post. We concur on many points of view here.
Next, with regard to Aristotle and the general notion of categorical approaches to philosophy and to philosophy of science (not the science of philosophy!) This fascinating topic originally came to my attention in the 1970's when a loud public (and very political) debate on the public health risks from exposures to chemical carcinogens, mutagens and other biosemiotic change agents raged. The categorical issue how can one decide between the category "carcinogen" and "non-carcinogen". This decision had huge economic inferences. I published a short paper on this in the 1980's in "Risk Analysis". In the intervening decades, I have studied the various philosophers' lists of categories and compared their motivation for establishing such lists - Aristotle, Scholastics, Kant, Hegel, CSP, Whitehead, Russell, and moderns on "structural realism, etc. Clearly, the philosophers' picture of categories is anything but homogenous. Comparably, the various disciplines of the natural sciences use a wide range of methods to establish categories as either empirical or theoretical entities. In this context, mathematical category theory is a complete outlier, probably because Saunders Mac Lane asserted that philosophical categories were virtually meaningless (personal conversation, roughly 2002) >From this historical perspective, augmented with the uniqueness of humans as >genetic, medical, and behavioral unities, I find no reason to separate the >mind from other facets of human existence. In other words, the integral whole >is a consequence of sublation to an assimilated individual with internal >coherence. This is comparable to your views on 2 nd Order cybernetics, is it >not? (BTW, this statement justifies the separation of Kaufmann's views on set theory (as related to CSP's alpha graphs) and the natural integers that give mathematical perplexity to life. The concept of IDENTITY becomes an ur-category) (From a physical perspective, this view simply says that life is electrical with augmentation by newtonian weights, not Boscovich particles of CSP and not Cantorian "points" without values.) Hopefully, this clarifies my brief and nearly incomprehensible remarks from this morning. Cheers Jerry On May 29, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > Dear Jerry > > I have just made a library loan of a book that seems rare in paper but can > be bought electronically, which looks very good: Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou > (ed) 2000. Aristotle and Contemporary Science, Vol one, Peter Lang. With > introduction by Hillary Putnam and a chapter by Nicolescu and van Frassen. I > think that it is correct that synechism makes it obvious that the differences > between the course, of which Peirce only uses the three, is not absolute. > > Cheers > > Søren > > Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sendt: 29. maj 2014 15:40 > Til: charles murray > Cc: Peirce List > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on Mind, self, and > person > > List, Charles: > > A brief comment on: > On May 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, charles murray wrote: > > > Clarity about Peirce's view of this matter is especially important to me > because I take seriously Smyth's insistence that minds are introduced as > theoretical entities which have no power of efficient causation. Physical > efficacy is another matter, and Kees may feel his argument is consistent with > Smyth's analysis. I would appreciate others' reaction to this second issue. > > > I would argue that the intimacy of mind-body is an inseparable whole or > totality and hence dynamical process such that the semantics of separation of > Aristotelian causes is irrelevant. The effort to create a distinction between > efficient causality and physical efficacy is very very weak as they emerge > from the same root. > > This creative intimacy, of thought to action, is essential, for example, in > the performing arts. > Indeed it lies at the ground of human communicative capacities - including > procreative capacities. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
