Helmut, list
1] Because my reading of Peirce is that neither Mind nor Matter are
primordial, does not mean that 'something' must be primordial! Why
should it be? My reading of Peirce's cosmology is that nothing is
primordial. He's very specific that before the Big Bang- there was
nothing.
2] JAS's rejection of my reading of Peirce that Matter and Mind
cannot exist without the other, is to erroneously define this as
'Neutralism', where both are independent and on a par. But Neutralism
is NOT my reading of Peirce's hylopathic monism. Most certainly, Mind
and Matter, in my reading of Peirce, are not independent of each
other or on a par.
3] I don't see that a primordial force is a 'beautiful hypothesis!
Why should it be?
Edwina
On Sat 25/09/21 3:24 PM , Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Jon, Edwina, List, You (Jon) wrote: "Again, if somehow neither
mind nor matter is primordial, then something else must be
primordial. What else could there be?" Buddhists believe, that
there has not been a beginning (and will be no end), so I guess, they
think, that for them primordiality itself is not for granted. To
believe in a beginning (and in an end), means to take the primordial
for granted, and of course this "what else" must be God, and
therefore mind. On the other hand, Tibetan buddhists (Sogyal
Rinpoche: "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying") speak of the
"primordial clear light". But I don´t know, if they mean
"primordial" in the sense of "preexisted". Biologists know the
parallelity between ontogenesis and phylogenesis, but is that a
general rule? Does "primordial" necessarily mean both, higher
typological class level, and temporal origin? In Peirce´s
encyclopical definition (You, Jon, have cited, thank you, as for
every part of your for me, and us all, I am sure, completely valuable
research!), it is both. But, is the "both", the comma, an "or"- or an
"and"- both? All in all, I more and more am tempted to tend towards
your, Jon´s view, but I remain sceptical, and think, that your,
Edwina`s view is unrefutable and well founded too. But, why not
accept a quite plausible and beautiful hypothesis? Er- maybe, because
beauty may be dangerous? Like Femme Fatale, Flowers of Evil, religion
wars? Now I am overstrained by my own associations. Overstrained, but
Best, Helmut 25. September 2021 um 20:10 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Edwina, Helmut, List: ET: But my reading of Peirce
is that neither [mind nor matter] can 'exist' without the other.
But that is an invalid reading of Peirce, because he explicitly
rejects "placing the inward [mind/form] and outward [matter] aspects
of substance on a par," which "seems to render both primordial" (CP
6.24, EP 1:292, 1891). In another manuscript, he explicitly states
that his synechism restricts the available alternatives to either
materialism or idealism--"The paradox here has always been that mind
and matter are of disparate natures. But the maxim of continuity will
say: this disparateness is a mere matter of degree. Either mind is a
peculiar kind of matter, or else matter is a peculiar sort of mind"
(R 936:3, no date). Again, if somehow neither mind nor matter is
primordial, then something else must be primordial. What else could
there be? ET: 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. But that is not how Peirce
defines "effete mind." It does not mean that matter is "entrapped
within" mind, he explicitly affirms instead that "matter is a
peculiar sort of mind ... mind so completely under the domination of
habit as to act with almost perfect regularity & to have lost its
powers of forgetting & of learning" (ibid). "I have begun by showing
that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which
all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products
of growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter
to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102, EP
1:312, 1892). ET: But Mind only functions/exists within Matter
so, it has its limits as well. Please provide an exact quotation
where Peirce explicitly affirms that mind only functions/exists within
matter. Otherwise, this belief cannot be accurately ascribed to him.
HR: I think, that Peirce's texts leave space for different
interpretations. Sure, but not all interpretations are created
equal--there are valid interpretations, and there are invalid
interpretations, i.e., misinterpretations. There is no valid
interpretation of Peirce's writings that would accurately ascribe to
him the belief that mind is not primordial. Of course, anyone is free
to disagree with him about this, as Edwina clearly does. Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer,
Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:09 PM Helmut Raulien wrote:
Edwina, List, Yes- and I think, that Peirce´s texts leave space
for different interpretations. I think, that mind being primordial
(in the sense of preexisted) or not is the same topic as whether a
preexisted external God exists or not. The space Peirces texts leave
for yes or no, in my understanding, is his admittance of
hypotheticality on one hand, and on the other, his claim of strong
plausibility of those hypotheses, at least of the reality of God. I
personally am content with sitting on a fence between pantheism and
theism, and between your and Jon´s interpretation of monism. I can
wait until I am dead to know the answer, and, as long as I live, I
don´t want to waste lifetime believing this or that. I think it is
possible to live in a way sitting pretty with either outcome. Best,
Helmut 25. September 2021 um 18:33 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
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 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 [5] . ►
PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond;
and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
