Edwina, List: ET: Simply repeating your position is not an argument.
Regards, Jon S. On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:09 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > Simply repeating your position is not an argument. As I've said - you have > failed to differentiate - and it's a crucial differentiation - between > 'idealism' and 'objective idealism'. > > This means, in my view, that you have rejected the basic generative > and dynamic complexity of Peirce. You have reduced him to a simple > authoritarian Platonist! But Peirce's infrastructure is, instead, a complex > adaptive system. > > This includes the self-organizing dynamism of the Peircean framework - > with his view that the nature of evolution "must proceed according to some > principle; and this principle will itself be of the nature of a law. But it > must be such a law that it can evolve or develop itself" 7.515. > > How does it do this? By means of the complex processes of semiosis - which > include the process of DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI and the vital role of the three > categories in their different modes of :1-1;2-2;2-1;3-3;3-2;3-1. These all > work to enable novelty, chance, freedom - and - individuation - and > stability and generality. This is a complex system- far beyond the capacity > of any simple idealism. > > And you have rejected his synechism which will "not admit that physical > and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct - whether as belonging to > different categories of substance or as entirely separate sides of one > shield but will insist that all phenomena are of one character, thought > some are more mental and spontaneous, others more material and regular" > 7.570 > > You have, in my view, confined Peirce to a simple 'mental' determinism - > where some Ideal Form is a priori and primordial. This is basic Platonism - > and Peirce was an Aristotelian - which rejects such deterministic idealism. > > By ignoring the term of 'objective' - I think you have denied the complex > adaptive nature of Peircean semiosis - but - I don't think we are going to > convince each other of the validity of each other's views. > > Edwina > > On Sat 03/08/19 10:52 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Again, Peirce's position is quite plainly stated in the text of CP > 6.24-25--not dualism, neutralism, or materialism, but idealism; > specifically, objective idealism, which holds "the psychical law alone as > primordial" and "that matter is effete mind." > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt\ > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:41 PM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
