BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Gary R, list:
I continue to disagree with your stance that Peirce's objective
idealism is equivalent to idealism - and that 'the psychical law is
primordial' - with the psychical law as 3ns.
My reading of Peirce is that NOTHING is primordial - neither Mind
nor Matter. Instead, my reading of Peirce is that objective idealism
means that Mind is working on Matter. Again, Peirce did not say that
his theory was 'idealism'; he specifically used the term of
'objective' added to that idealism. What is 'objective'? An external,
non-subjective object; ie, matter. Mind cannot operate on its own;
therefore, it is working with/on Matter
My understanding of Peirce is that both Matter and Mind are
co-evolving. Neither is primordial; but they co-evolve in complexity.
An atom is less complex than a cell, and the Mind that functions as
the organization of an atom is less complex than the Mind that
organizes the organization of a cell. What is going on in our
universe is the co-development of Mind-as-Matter and Matter-as-Mind;
both increasing in complexity. Again - neither is primordial.
I consider it an error to think that 3ns, or habit-taking is
primordial. As Peirce says, 'three elements are active in the
world:first, chance; second, law, and third, habit-taking' 1.409.
That is - the three categories are not primordial.
What is primordial? Nothing. As Peirce writes - "in the beginning -
infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which
being without connections or regularity would properly be without
existence" 6.33
That is - there is no 3ns in this state of 'unpersonalized feeling'.
This means - there is no 'Mind' or 'idealism.
Edwina
On Fri 02/08/19 9:33 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Gary R., List:
I have no desire to engage in yet another round of debates about CP
6.24-25. I fully agree with your excellent summary below, as well as
your subsequent posts. Peirce's position is quite plainly stated in
the text itself--not dualism, neutralism, or materialism, but
idealism; specifically, objective idealism, which holds "the
psychical law alone as primordial" and "that matter is effete mind."
Your comments about Deacon reflect remarks that I came across
recently in a 2012 paper [1] by Matthew E. Moore--"We who are already
convinced of Peirce’s greatness tend to forget how impenetrable he
can look to the rest of the human race. The conceptual overhead of
Peirce’s philosophy is almost prohibitively high ..." I suspect
that this contributes to at least some of the recurring disputes here
on the List--each of us has absorbed different amounts and different
portions of that vast "conceptual overhead"--and I have found it to
be a formidable obstacle to overcome whenever I want to explain
Peirce to a non-Peircean. The " curse of knowledge [2]" comes into
play; I tend to forget that others are utterly unfamiliar with
certain ideas and principles that I have come to take for granted.
Moore went on to suggest that "we will need at least something
answering to his categories and his theory of signs if we are to get
much philosophical mileage out of Peirce," and the purpose of that
particular paper is to question whether "the continuum" also needs to
be included, as Peirce seemed to believe. What else (if anything)
qualifies as bare minimum for understanding and appreciating Peirce's
thought overall? What resources (if any) have you and others found
especially helpful for enabling the uninitiated to get up to speed?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:46 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
Edwina, list,
Edwina wrote: "My only quibble with the title is 'How Mind Emerged
from Matter'. My own view is that neither was primary; both emerged
and function together."
I also would quibble--perhaps more than quibble--with Deacon's
subtitle. But, and following Peirce's view--objective idealism--I see
mind as primordial.
Seeing matter as primordial Peirce terms 'materialism', a view which
he rejects as "repugnant to scientific logic as to common sense; since
it requires us to suppose that a certain kind of mechanism will feel."
He also rejects the third option which you support: that the two
arose together, which was then, apparently, referred to as 'monism'
but which Peirce prefers to call 'neutralism'. He 'condemns'
monism-neutralism on the basis of "Ockham's razor": "By placing the
inward and outward aspects of substance on a par, it seems to render
both primordial."
For Peirce the universe does not commence as a peculiar kind of 2ns
with the laws of mind and matter 'arising' together and co-equal.
CP 6.24-25 (1890) 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.
The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective
idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming
physical laws. But before this can be accepted it must show itself
capable of explaining the tridimensionality of space, the laws of
motion, and the general characteristics of the universe, with
mathematical clearness and precision; for no less should be demanded
of every philosophy. (Boldface added to emphasize that Peirce is
discussing laws throughout.)
('Objective idealism' was recently discussed in another thread
here.)
As brilliant a thinker as Deacon is, he appears to some, including
me, to be a kind of "partial Peirceian," to some I've spoken with,
even a "thief of Peirce," an expression Walker Percy used to describe
his own use of Peirce: that is, using what is useful to ones own
argument and ignoring or discarding what is not. I tend to think of
him as much more the former than the latter, for his understanding of
Peircean semeiotics seems to me partial (although he uses some of
Peircean thinking well in Incomplete Nature, although not very much
of his semeiotic). But even if his understanding of Peirce seems
partial and 'incomplete', he appears to me to make a good faith
attempt to be true to his ownunderstanding.
This partial understanding was apparent even in consideration of his
first book, The Symbolic Species, and I recall discussions with
several Peirceans at an ICCS conference at the UAH in Huntsville,
Alabama, a number of years ago who found his thinking both
stimulating in some regards, but also somewhat superficial in
consideration of some well-established Peircean principles.
I will have more to say on Incomplete Nature (and its unfortunate
subtitle) including his novel use of 'constraint'. But I'm
unexpecedly away from my downtown desk and do not have my copy of
Incomplete Nature with me uptown where I am about to be entertaining
out of town guests.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.pucsp.br/pragmatismo/dowloads/lectures_papers/mattew-moore-paper.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[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 .
