Jon, list:
By 'mind' being primordial, I understand in its role of governance via
'reasonable laws'. I don't see 'mind' as separate or a priori.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Søren, List:
SB: I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from which both matter
and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine – or inside and
outside, which I find easier to comprehend and fits with his development of
Aristotle’s hylomorphism, meaning that all matter is alive “inside”. But does
that also mean that all mind is matter like inside?
No, because mind is the more fundamental of the two--"the physical law as
derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial" (CP 6.24). Peirce
famously said that "matter is effete mind" (CP 6.25), and also called it "mere
specialized and partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102); but as far as I know, he
never described mind as "lively matter."
Regards,
Jon
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon
Yes, I kind of get that, but the transitions from signs to matter is still
somewhat vague for me. I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from
which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine –
or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and fits with his
development of Aristotle’s hylomorphism, meaning that all matter is alive
“inside”. But does that also mean that all mind is matter like inside? But
still it is pretty heavy to encompass with what we know of matter and mind to
day. The only one who has made an attempt on this is Basarab Nicolescu through
his theory of the hidden third
http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articles/ClujHiddenThird052009Proceedings.pdf
, levels of reality and logic of the included middle
http://www.basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_Notice/TJESNo_1_12_2010.pdf and
http://www.metanexus.net/archive/conference2005/pdf/nicolescu.pdf and he is
pretty Peirce inspired and combines that with his knowledge of quantum physics
and philosophy.
Best
Søren
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21. oktober 2016 16:11
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Søren, List:
I am still not sure exactly what you are asking, or what climate change has
to do with it. Peirce's cosmogony/cosmology conceives the second Universe of
Brute Actuality (including physical matter) as a discontinuity that came into
Being on the underlying continuum of potentiality--a colored mark on the
whiteboard, in my recent adaptation of his famous diagram. In semeiotic terms,
per my suggestion yesterday in the thread on Peirce's Cosmology, it is the
aggregate of the Dynamic (actual) Interpretants--which, along with the
Immediate (potential) and Final (habitual) Interpretants, constitute the
"living realities" that are the Conclusion of the Argument.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff. List
My problem – probably arising from my scientific background as a biologist
– is that I still do not see how Peirce explains in cosmogonical terms how we
get from Peirce semiotic objective idealism with the universe as a grand
argument to a physical as well as chemical theory of matter. How do we get
from the three universes to the world we are in today, with its physically real
problem of global warming?
Best
Søren
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21. oktober 2016 01:17
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Soren, list:
I don’t see why you’re having problems with seeing how this is possible
without a recognition of the independent reality of embodied conscious subjects
living in language and culture.
Could you not simply look to the best example that embodies this
integration of phaneroscopic metaphysics that is combined with ethics,
esthetics, logic; that is combined with tychism, ananchism, agapism (together,
synechism); which supports the triadic process of semiotic through
pragmaticism?
Best,
Jerry R
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
Jon and list
Difficult question. The choice of phenomenology and to combine it with pure
mathematics is in itself metaphysical. Out of this combination develops
phaneroscopic metaphysics, which develop worlds and which is again combined
with ethic, aesthetics and logic as semiotics. This is again combined with
Tychism, synechism and agapism, which are partly independent of the three
categories but supports the development of the triadic process semiotics, and
his pragmaticism, from which a theory of meaning of a sign is developed. But I
still have problems in seeing how this is possible without a recognition of the
independent reality of embodied conscious subjects living in language and
culture.
Søren
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20. oktober 2016 18:22
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Søren, List:
Are you saying that the Categories are phaneroscopic, while the Universes
are metaphysical?
Thanks,
Jon
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote:
I suggest that in a phaneroscopic process ontology the categories will
develop into worlds.
Søren
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20. oktober 2016 15:34
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Søren, List:
SB: I think it is fair to say that the categories do form three distinct
different universes.
Just to clarify--are you saying that the categories and the universes are
the same?
Thanks,
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
