Clark - I prefer not to think of Jung. You wrote:
"the sorts of things structuralism dealt with in treating the mind as
literature were correct."
I'm not sure what you mean by the above.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best
Morality)
On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
"To me the big issue were common structures in the environment privileging
certain interpretations making either diffusion or common mind unnecessary.
(Much like certain structures evolve independently in nature due to the
environment)"
EDWINA: - Agree up to a point. That is, I agree with the 'common structures
in the envt privileging certain interpretations'...and diffusion is unnecessary
(and often impossible due to continental isolation)...but..I think that 'common
mind' is a reality. Otherwise, there could be multipe interpretations. That is,
I don't see the human behaviour as entirely dependent on the envt; rather, the
human behaviour is based on being logical adaptations to environmental
realities. I insert that 'logical adaptation'.
So, it is interesting for example to see that populations that were
agricultural economies, that relied on irrigation to bring water to crops,
developed large populations AND also, some form of mnemonic memory technology
(some form of symbolic script or technique) to keep records. This was not
emergent via diffusion (India, China, Egypt, Aztec, Inca)...Also, all developed
a hierarchical authority and 'god-kings' infrastructure....
I think it depends upon what we mean by common mind. Clearly there are common
biological components to the brain which would suggest a common bias to the
mind. I think psychologists and clinicians in the classic structuralist period
went well beyond that though. Think Jung for instance. Admittedly a lot of
psycho-analysis was complete nonsense so that’s not surprising.
But I fully agree we can’t adopt a blank slate myth where all that matters is
the environment. I should have made that more explicit. I’m skeptical that
means the sorts of things structuralism dealt with in treating the mind as
literature were correct.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
