No, Peirce was an Aristotelian not a Platonist or NeoPlatonist. The latter
proposes some power or force 'beyond or outside of being' - and Peirce rejects
this. And to define Peirce as a neo-Platonist because he read Platonists such
as Plotinus - is a weak argument. Equally, to define him as such ..even though
he wasn't conscious of it - is even weaker.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:14 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe
Changing subject line as per John’s request - I have questions on Frederik's
chapter but I had to wait until I had a copy of the introduction first. I love
what I’ve read thus. Wish I could justify buying the whole book as Frederik’s
work seems very much tied to my own interests in Peirce’s semiotics and
Husserl/Heideggarian phenomenology. Particularly the place of indices and
icons. There’s a lot to digest in the introduction and I’ve been particularly
swamped at work this week.
On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
And since semiosis includes Mind/reasoning - that means that Mind operates
in all matter...and in all three categorical modes. And this is certainly not
neoplatonism.
Kelly Parker’s argument (and I recognize not all buy it) is The Ascent of
Soul to Nous: Charles S. Peirce as Neoplatonist. Looks like it just got put
backup online ungated.
http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/Neoplatonism/csp-plot.html
It’s been a number of years since I last studied it carefully. So my memory
is a tad fuzzy in a few places. I do recall there being one or two key places
where I think his argument outstrips his evidence. But it’s an extremely
worthwhile paper to read. It definitely changed how I think about Peirce.
These aren’t the only neoPlatonic themes in Peirce. Reading Peirce Reading
does a nice job on some as well. And surprisingly that appears to be online
temporarily as well. (Get it while you can - it’s a fantastic little book)
http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~tmoore/docs/smyth/RPR-24Aug96.pdf
2) Then, there are some who define the actions that take place among atoms
and molecules as purely reactive, actions of Secondness; i.e., that no
'reasoning' process takes place. They may, as does Clark Goble, admit that
mediation (Thirdness) plays a role but it is a non-cognitive mode.
John Deely simply rejects Mind within the physical realm and considers
their interactions, if I understand him, pure acts of Secondness - dyadic
interactions with no mediation and of course, no Mind.
I suspect we’re still on semantics here and what we mean by cognition. But I
know this is an endlessly circling debate so I’ll not push it more.
Does John simply attribute secondness to the physical realm? That’s not how I
read him, but perhaps I was in error. It seems to me that when we consider the
interaction of two particles we can conceive of them in terms of both
secondness and thirdness. A lot depends upon what level we are considering I
think - that is what abstractions, simplifications and modeling we are doing
for our particular discussion at that time. Perhaps I’m wrong but I assume John
would, like me, see all three categories always in play.
That is I see our discourse and its form very much tied to the topics we’re
discussing. That is the aspects of reality we are interested in at that moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
