"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Helmut, list
I wouldn't say that Matter is a subclass of Mind. That would set them both up as each 'existing' or functioning on their own. they are two different realities that form our universe. But my reading of Peirce is that neither can 'exist' without the other.
I don't think that 'effete mind' means that Matter is a subclass. To me - it means that Matter is 'cemented' Mind; i.e., it is so entrapped within the organizational patterns of Mind such that it doesn't have much freedom or power [it's effete] to do anything outside of those patterns. The physico-chemical realm is more 'entrapped' than the biological realm [thank goodness - just think what out universe would be like if water molecules fell apart every nanosecond!].
Mind, after all, has the power to imagine; so, it isn't 'effete'. But Mind only functions/exists within Matter so, it has its limits as well.
Again, I remind you that when any one of us reads Peirce's texts - we do so within a triadic semiosic process, such that the Text is the Object - and we, using our mediating Representamen/Sign or knowledge base, INTERPRET this text according to our Representamen. Therefore - we cannot say: 'Just read the Text!'...because it's not a mechanical transfer of meaning from Text to Person. It's an interpretation - and that means that each of us can have our own understanding of that text. And so- we can differ in our interpretations.
Edwina
On Sat 25/09/21 11:40 AM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, List,To me your points make sense. That matter is a subclass of mind (effete mind), doesn´t mean, that mind is primordial, if it cannot exist without its subset matter. That it cannot exist without matter, makes sense, as it is triadic. The sign triad too cannot exist without any of its three correlates. Given, that "primordial" means being able to exist alone, and not being a higher level of classification.Best,Helmut25. September 2021 um 15:38 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:Mike, list
Thanks for your comments. And yes- that's exactly how I view Mind, as an organizing system of matter - whether in crystals or protoplasm or even human societies.
And I consider that Aristotle's 'form' and 'spirit' is analogous with Peirce's 'Mind'...which would include the term of 'hylopathy'.
But JAS and I do differ in our interpretation of 6.24. JAS, to my understanding views the relation between Mind and Matter as one of 'idealism' where Mind is primordial. I, on the other hand, interpret that section - and other sections in Peirce- as 'objective idealism' and understand this phrase to mean that Mind and Matter are monist, i.e., correlates and that neither is primordial. Indeed, in my view, neither can 'be' without the other. ..so, it would be impossible to conclude that either is primordial.
I think this is a big difference.
And, I'd also comment that flinging quotations around isn't the answer to interpreting Peirce. The fact is - and this doesn't seem to be acknowledged - but, our interaction with the world, be it a text or a tree - is not direct. It's not a dyadic 'straight from the horse's mouth' method. It's triadic. There is always that mediation by the Representamen/Sign - and this means that the resultant Interpretant is imbued with out own knowledge base. This is why, as Peirce noted, 'to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most pernicious" [W2:212]. So, neither I nor JAS can, on our own, declare that our reading of Peirce is 'the correct one'. All we can do is write them out...and leave it to others; many others.
Edwina
On Sat 25/09/21 12:17 AM , "sowa @bestweb.net" s...@bestweb.net sent:Mike, Jon AS, Jon A, Edwina, List,That is a good summary of the issues:MB: For a few years now I have felt it unfortunate that Peirce chose
to use the word 'mind' for these points, since it conventionally
conjures up images of thoughts and consciousness. If, however, one
views the concept of 'mind' as embracing patterns and regularities (on
the abiotic side, such as for crystals) to ones of complexity, order
and 'habit' on the biotic side, I think we can better understand
Peirce's intent of capturing the structure of matter as well as the
laws of thought and representation. This interpretation, granted
perhaps on the more aggressive end of applying Peircean thinking (as I
understand it) to the entirety of existence, establishes a continuity
that can extend from the Big Bang to thought and teleological purpose.
Under this understanding, I see both Edwina and Jon as being right,
though each is perhaps not expansive enough to embrace the other
person's viewpoint.Best of all, it eliminates Two terms, which by Peirce's own criteria,
should be arrested for failing to show their passports at the gates of
perception and action: 'effete mind' and 'hylopathic'.JAS in response to JFS: If Peirce's writings were so inscrutable that
what he meant, intended, and believed could not be reliably discerned
from exact quotations, then why would we bother trying to read,
understand, and discuss his thought at all?For most of what Peirce wrote, we can get clear interpretations that
(a) are good enough for our own purposes. (b) are consistent with the
mainstream results developed in the century after Peirce, and (c) help
us better understand those new results by applying ideas we have
learned through out studies of Peirce.But those quotations about effete mind are far below the quality of his
best contributions. In fact, I agree with Jon A that the quotation by
Aristotle is far superior in clearness and quality::JA: Due to the importance of Aristotle's account for every discussion
that follows it, not to mention for the many that follow it without
knowing it, and because the issues it raises arise repeatedly
throughout this work, I am going to cite an extended extract from the
relevant text (Aristotle, On the Soul, 2.1), breaking up the argument
into a number of individual premisses, stages, and examples.In summary, I believe that Mike's statement, quoted above, is a good
reason for putting the terms 'effete mind' and 'hylopathic' in the bin of
quaint and exotic terminology. Perhaps somebody someday might find a
use for them, but nobody so far has found any reason for adopting them.John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
