Stephen, list,
I usually don´t feel that one ideationally should hop to and fro betweeen physics (Einstein, quantum theory) and philosophy (triadic thinking), firstly because they are different starting points, and secondly because Einstein was rather a wave-man, and was quite suspicious about quantum theory, at least this is my impression as a layman who has not understood the formulas.
Also, I feel that the distinction between idealism and realism is not a clear one, due to the unclarity of the terms "idea", and "real":
Is an idea something primordinal, like with Platon, or is it a proposal intended to solve some problem, that has come to one´s mind?
Is real that what is (existence, being), or is it all that has any effect, so ideas too (in both kinds of definition)?
I can only speak for myself, and for me I neglect the Platonian "idea", and would replace them with "potentiality" or "possibility".
Reality for me is something other than being, as possibility or potentiality (what not yet exists) also works in the way that it does not deny things from happening or manifesting themselves. Of course everything that is works too, so reality is being plus potential being.
In my view "not denying" or "possibility" has an effect, because I guess that everything that is not impossible will happen, and very likely has happened sometimes before, maybe without somebody remembering, and with no detectable effect in the present (causality chain having faded out, or results not backtraced).
Conclusion: I can not see the difference between idealism and realism any more.
Best, Helmut
Freitag, 16. November 2018 um 15:31 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
Von: "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
My sense of things has changed as I have delved more deep;y into thinking related to Idealism and quantum matters. I think Peirce was a realist trapped in a realist's body as it were. I think there is enough cogency in idealism to require that it be honored as at least worthy of being unified with realism and subjected to criteria drawn from triadic thinking -- explicitly thought based on the acknowledgement of the fundamental place of consciousness. This seems to me consistent with Einsteins understanding of time and with the premises that underlie quantum thinking that suggest information as the basic stuff of the universe. I have no idea whether there is anything in Peirce that suggests he inclined in these directions, but I do feel that since its inception Triadic Philosophy whatever it is has been aimed in this way. Best, S
----------------------------- 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 .----------------------------- 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 .
