Søren, List: SB: I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine – or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and fits with his development of Aristotle’s hylomorphism, meaning that all matter is alive “inside”. But does that also mean that all mind is matter like inside?
No, because mind is the more fundamental of the two--"the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial" (CP 6.24). Peirce famously said that "matter is effete mind" (CP 6.25), and also called it "mere specialized and partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102); but as far as I know, he never described mind as "lively matter." Regards, Jon On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > Jon > > > > Yes, I kind of get that, but the transitions from signs to matter is still > somewhat vague for me. I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from > which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to > imagine – or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and > fits with his development of Aristotle’s hylomorphism, meaning that all > matter is alive “inside”. But does that also mean that all mind is matter > like inside? But still it is pretty heavy to encompass with what we know of > matter and mind to day. The only one who has made an attempt on this is > Basarab Nicolescu through his theory of the hidden third > http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articles/ClujHiddenThird052009Proceedin > gs.pdf , levels of reality and logic of the included middle > http://www.basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_Notice/TJESNo_1_12_2010.pdf and > http://www.metanexus.net/archive/conference2005/pdf/nicolescu.pdf and he > is pretty Peirce inspired and combines that with his knowledge of quantum > physics and philosophy. > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 21. oktober 2016 16:11 > *To:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Søren, List: > > > > I am still not sure exactly what you are asking, or what climate change > has to do with it. Peirce's cosmogony/cosmology conceives the second > Universe of Brute Actuality (including physical matter) as a discontinuity > that came into Being on the underlying continuum of potentiality--a colored > mark on the whiteboard, in my recent adaptation of his famous diagram. In > semeiotic terms, per my suggestion yesterday in the thread on Peirce's > Cosmology, it is the aggregate of the Dynamic (actual) > Interpretants--which, along with the Immediate (potential) and Final > (habitual) Interpretants, constitute the "living realities" that are the > Conclusion of the Argument. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > Jeff. List > > > > My problem – probably arising from my scientific background as a biologist > – is that I still do not see how Peirce explains in cosmogonical terms how > we get from Peirce semiotic objective idealism with the universe as a grand > argument to a physical as well as chemical theory of matter. How do we get > from the three universes to the world we are in today, with its physically > real problem of global warming? > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 21. oktober 2016 01:17 > *To:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Soren, list: > > > > I don’t see why you’re having problems with seeing how this is possible > without a recognition of the independent reality of embodied conscious > subjects living in language and culture. > > > > Could you not simply look to the best example that embodies this > integration of phaneroscopic metaphysics that is combined with ethics, > esthetics, logic; that is combined with tychism, ananchism, agapism > (together, synechism); which supports the triadic process of semiotic > through pragmaticism? > > > > Best, > Jerry R > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > Jon and list > > > > Difficult question. The choice of phenomenology and to combine it with > pure mathematics is in itself metaphysical. Out of this combination > develops phaneroscopic metaphysics, which develop worlds and which is > again combined with ethic, aesthetics and logic as semiotics. This is again > combined with Tychism, synechism and agapism, which are partly independent > of the three categories but supports the development of the triadic process > semiotics, and his pragmaticism, from which a theory of meaning of a sign > is developed. But I still have problems in seeing how this is possible > without a recognition of the independent reality of embodied conscious > subjects living in language and culture. > > > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 20. oktober 2016 18:22 > *To:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Søren, List: > > > > Are you saying that the Categories are phaneroscopic, while the Universes > are metaphysical? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jon > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > I suggest that in a phaneroscopic process ontology the categories will > develop into worlds. > > > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 20. oktober 2016 15:34 > *To:* Søren Brier > > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Søren, List: > > SB: I think it is fair to say that the categories do form three distinct > different universes. > > Just to clarify--are you saying that the categories and the universes are > the same? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jon >
----------------------------- 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 .
