BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
The psychical law i.e., Mind, is primordial and 'matter is effete
mind' - but - this Mind is not human mind, but that basic natural
'primordial mind' which seeks or wills, so to speak, itself into
existentiality by becoming matter - which it does via continuous
actions of semiosis.
Philosophy, to my understanding, focuses on the actions of the human
mind not the natural mind. The human mind articulates itself primarily
in man-made artifacts; i.e., in language, in observable or existential
beliefs and behaviour, in various artifactual images. The natural Mind
articulates itself in matter - which is almost but not as complex in
form and in networked interaction, in informational processing. I see
the human aspects of Mind-to-Matter as a more complex mode than the
natural mode.
I honestly don't see that one has to take the philosophical or
human-mind facets of this great Mind-becoming-matter into account
when discussing the natural-facets of Mind-becoming-matter. I think
one can legitimately examine Peircean semiosis actions in
Mind-becoming-Matter in the natural world without moving on to the
more complex human mind semiosic actions.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 30/03/17 5:38 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, Clark, List:
One thing that I am curious about is whether it is feasible to
follow Peirce's lead in expanding the scope of semeiosis from human
cognition to the physico-chemical and biological realms, without
maintaining Peirce's distinctive metaphysics of objective
idealism--"the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law
alone as primordial," such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate
habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.24-25). In other words, I am
not sure that we can fruitfully separate his scientific thought and
its contemporary implications from his philosophical thought and its
contemporary implications, or intelligibly discuss the former without
taking the latter into account.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Clark - thanks for your comments - and they are indeed very valid.
What I'd like to see, in discussions on the Peirce list, is an
expansion of his work from the focus on human cognition - to the
physico-chemical and biological realms. Peirce himself used his
semiosis in those realms but it doesn't get discussed on this list,
which seems to be 95% made up of those focused strictly on philosophy
and philosophers - and human cognition.
So- given the make-up of the posters on this list and their interest
[in philosophy] then, I don't see the point of bringing up the
non-philosophical focus of Peirce's work.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca [4]
On Thu 30/03/17 5:04 PM , CLARK GOBLE [email protected] [5] sent:
On Mar 30, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I don't see the point of outlining my research on this list - as
I'd get reactions of 'Peirce didn't say that!' and 'That's
Taborsky-semiotics and it's not Pure Peirce!...I think my point was
just that what gets discussed is largely determined by the list
members. If we don’t like what’s being discussed we can start new
discussions.
I’ll confess that many of the discussions the past year I didn’t
find that interesting, although I occasionally chimed in here and
there on say the religion topic. Partially because it was just
something I was fairly ignorant on. So I like learning things I
don’t know. Sometimes they end up being helpful in unexpected ways
with my own pursuits.
I’ve started a few topics myself including the question of the
metaphysical nature of truth in Peirce.
But there’s definitely other topics I’m interested in. One that
someone brought up was what it means to equate two signs. I’d add
what does it mean to repeat a sign, particularly relative to the
index and icon parts of the sign. This is actually a big topic in
Continental philosophy in the 1960’s especially by figures like
Derrida and Deleuze.
If you have other topics I’m game. I wouldn’t mind going back to
the reading we did on natural propositions a year or so ago. There
were parts of that discussion I wasn’t able to join in on due to
time demands that I still have questions about.
I also am studying more typical epistemological questions in a
Peircean framework. It’s an interesting question to me since of
course traditional epistemology is again a more static analysis of
justification at the time of knowledge. There are problems with that.
But if we switch to a more Peircean focus on inquiry, what is the
place of those more traditional epistemological justifications?
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.primus.ca
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
