Just to reinforce Jon’s post just now, here is the full text of CP 6.24 (or EP1:292-3, 1891):
[[ 24. The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, will hardly find defenders today. Rejecting this, we are driven to some form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism. Then the question arises whether physical laws on the one hand and the psychical law on the other are to be taken (a) as independent, a doctrine often called monism, but which I would name neutralism; or, (b) the psychical law as derived and special, the physical law alone as primordial, which is materialism; or, (c) the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial, which is idealism. The materialistic doctrine seems to me quite as repugnant to scientific logic as to common sense; since it requires us to suppose that a certain kind of mechanism will feel, which would be a hypothesis absolutely irreducible to reason,— an ultimate, inexplicable regularity; while the only possible justification of any theory is that it should make things clear and reasonable. Neutralism is sufficiently condemned by the logical maxim known as Ockham's razor, i.e., that not more independent elements are to be supposed than necessary. By placing the inward and outward aspects of substance on a par, it seems to render both primordial. 25. The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. ]] Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 21-Aug-16 19:11 Jon - I didn't make up the sentence 'matter is effete mind'. It's Peirce's phrase. "The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism; that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" 6.25. And as he says in 6.24, 'The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, will hardly find defenders today"...and he goes on to describe whether physical laws and the psychical law are to be taken as a) 'independent of each other; , or b) the psychical law as derived [with the physical as primordial], or c) the physical law as derived with the psychical as primordial'.....6.24. Peirce rejects all three outlines and considers 'both the psychical and the physical as primordial'. i totally disagree with any notion that there is such a thing as non-materialized Mind, i.e., that there is such a thing as 'non-effete' Mind. And I don't agree with your view that Peirce thinks such a thing for that would be to put the psychical as primordial and he rejects that...Read his outline of Objective Idealism 6.24 And the Representamen is not identical with Thirdness. As you can see in the ten classes of Signs, [8.341] the Representamen is in a mode of Thirdness in 6 of these classes, in a mode of Secondness in 3 and in a mode of Firstness in 1 class. And - yet, he defines them ALL as Signs. Edwina
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
