Re: [PEIRCE-L] Another Perspective on 'Quasi-Mind'
In discussing quasimind, it's important to consider Aristotle's hierarchy of psyches in _De Anima_. Since Peirce was familiar with Aristotle, that hierarchy may have had some influence on his views: 1. Vegetative psyche of plants. 2. Sensitive psyche of sessile animals like sponges and clams. (Aristotle was the first to note that sponges were animals.) 3. Locomotive pysche of worms. 4. Psyche of animals having imagery (phantasia). 5. Rational psyche of an animal having logos (zôon logon echein). Each psyche inherits all the abilities of the more primitive psyches. For Aristotle, the rational psyche of humans is the most advanced. For discussion of that hierarchy, see Martha Nussbaum & Hilary Putnam, "Changing Aristotle's Mind", http://moodle.nthu.edu.tw/file.php/28946/M._Nussbaum_and_H._Putnam_Changing_Aristotle_s_Mind.pdf Interesting point: Nussbaum and Putnam cite the way Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle's hierarchy to justify the resurrection of the body at the Last Judgment. (Quotations below) They say that Aquinas had a more integrated interpretation of Aristotle than many later philosophers. But they don't claim that the resurrection of the body is essential to that view. John _ From Nussbaum and Putnam (1992) in the Summa Theologiae [Aquinas] concludes... that soul and body are so unified, so fitly and fully together in all their activity, that the separated soul has cognition only in a confused and unnatural way. With the death of the body, sensing and phantasia go; but then, he holds, all cognition of particulars and all modes of cognition built on this must go as well. But then the natural human way of cognizing must go: "To be separated from the body is contrary to the principle of its nature, and similarly to cognize without turning to phantasms is contrary to its nature. So it is united to the body so that it should be and act according to its nature" (ST I, q. 89, a. 1). What remains is only an imperfect cognition, 'confusam in communi' If the human mode of cognition is different, in its embodiment, from that of God and the angels, still it is exactly suited to human life, life in a world of changing perceptible particulars. Matter is suited to its function, and cognition's embodied modes to the nature of cognition's worldly objects (ST I, q. 84, a. 7). - 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 .
Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes. Best, Helmut 06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references.” Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls of bricks. BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people don’t see it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Today’s “pure reason of universal logic” is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural narrative. Today’s neck-beard playing computer games may reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as a hunter-gatherer. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, list, I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale.
RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
HELMUT >"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logics illusion of objectivity? Todays pure reason of universal logic relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this comfortable state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in todays scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival. So despite all this complexity in the pure reason of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls of bricks. BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people dont see it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Todays pure reason of universal logic is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural narrative. Todays neck-beard playing computer games may reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as a hunter-gatherer. Regards, sj From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis Stephen, list, I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale. Human traits also come from much more ancient evolutional achievements like humans, mammals, vertebrates, nervous animals, organisms, universal natural laws. I dont think that we disagree out of principle, we just emphasize differently: My point is, that somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and wants to get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button "This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. But I think, what you wrote about niches and subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in Albania on one hand there is the blood revenge culture, but on the other hand there also is the "Besa", which moderates it, and has saved many Jews from the Germans during the Nazi-Regime in WW2. I think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or precultural habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is put on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time scales. Best, helmut 02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make
