Helmut, list Your outline [ from 7.551] outlines Peirce's ‘forms of consciousness’. Medisense, is, in my view, not best understood as ‘a medium between primisense and alter sense [7.551] but as ’the formation of sets of ideas or association proper” [7.550.]
As for your comment about molecules, my understanding is that molecules are most certainly individual units of energy/matter. By an individual unit, I understand a form of mass that has a definite spatial and temporal identity and a definite compositional mode. The requirements enable this unit of matter to interact with other units of matter. A molecule, as you know, is made up of two or more chemically bonded atoms. It’s the bonding that creates the individual unit. As such, within that bond, which operates within Thirdness, or ‘rules of organization’ a molecule is an individual unit.. A nitrogen molecule is made up of two nitrogen atoms. Calcium Oxide molecule is made up of one of each atom of calcium and oxygen. A calcium dioxide molecule contains one each of carbon and oxygen atoms. What governs that bond? The bond operates within a structure - which we would consider its pattern of organization…Thirdness. This doesn’t required symbolic thought!! . Molecules don’t symbolically think - but they certainly operate within habits of formation - Thirdness, which is an operation of Mind. Molecules indexically ’think’; that is - they interact with other molecules, not symbolically or via ‘ideas’ but physically, via very specific chemical interactions . Plants are also individual forms of matter and, also operate within Thirdness of Mind, and indexical interactions. Thirdness in plants functions as the habits of their formation and interaction and indexicality functions as the direct connections of chemical contacts. Edwina > On Dec 15, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > in this regard I just want to mention Peirce´s categorial model of > consciousness: It consists of (in Peirce´s words: has the forms:) 1ns: > Primisense, Feeling, 2ns: Altersense, the reaction of self and other, and > 3ns: Medisense, Thinking, I think, the 3ns medium between Primi- and > Altersense. Altersense again consists of (has the modes, the varieties) > Sensation and Will. I think, these are 2.1., and 2.2.: 1ns of 2ns, and 2ns of > 2ns. Medisense consists of (or in Peirce´s words "has the modes") > Abstraction, Suggestion, Association (which, as I take for sure, are 3.1., > 3.2., 3.3.. firstness, secondness, and thirdness of thirdness). > > Now the question for me is: As a molecule does not really think, and > consciousness includes medisense, where is it (the medisense)? I say, in the > universe. So a molecule is not an individual, the universe is. Also a plant, > which does react (Altersense), but not think, is not a fully fledged > indicidual. But we are, when we think. > > Best, Helmut > > > 14. Dezember 2024 um 22:20 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Gary F, list > > You provided this quote > > “Since God, in His essential character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied > spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we call > consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or some > part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God probably > has no consciousness” (EP2:447 <>) > > Peirce also defines basic consciousness as ‘feeling’[Firstness] and as all > life partaking of this feeling. But all that is living also operates within > the second category [Secondness], even protoplasm, in that these forms of > life have boundaries to their mass. And all that is alive also operates > within Thirdness or a continuity of organizational habits of form and > function…This also suggests that consciousness might have grades - from > simple reactive feeling - where a cell, when in contact with a toxic > chemical, will close itself off or, as in plants, release a chemical > ‘warning'- to more complex ‘feelings which will involve, specifically, > Thirdness - where the system might actually change its organizational pattern > [and develop a harder bird beak]. I would also include consciousness or > feeling within the physicochemical realm. > > As for the suggestion that god is a disembodied spirit [ something without > mass, without boundaries….something I find logically incomprehensible > although I admit the ‘adorable’ nature of this concept] and therefore - not > functioning within the Three categories and therefore, no ‘feeling’, no > interaction, no continuity]…my view is that the Three Categories are > necessary results of the Big Bang which transformed Pure Energy [NOT free > energy] into a universe operative within time and space. I do not see, of > course, god as necessary - but see both Pure Energy [NOT free energy] and the > Three categories as necessary. > > I would define god as Pure Energy [ akin to Peirce’s Nothing’ See 1.412 ] and > note that it does not operate within the Three categories and therefore, has > not only no Secondness [disembodied] but also no consciousness > [Firstness/feeling]. . > > Edwina > > > > On Dec 14, 2024, at 1:39 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > (If the links don’t work this time I give up.) > > The passage you quote, Jon, represents one pole of a spectrum of concepts of > consciousness (or at least uses of the word) that Peirce expressed from time > to time. At the other end, perhaps, is his remark in the Additament to his > “Neglected Argument” essay of 1908: > > “Since God, in His essential character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied > spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we call > consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or some > part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God probably > has no consciousness” (EP2:447 <https://gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm#xcnc>). In > the middle is the graded concept of consciousness that he refers to as a > “bottomless lake <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/snm.htm#btmlslk>.” Whether these > are three different aspects of “consciousness” or three ways of talking about > it is hard to say, in my opinion. > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt > Sent: 13-Dec-24 13:08 > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Conscious is ubiquitous: Rumi and Peirce > > Gary R., List: > > > Rumi's first quoted remark is indeed reminiscent of this passage by Peirce. > > > CSP: But there is another class of objectors for whom I have more respect. > They are shocked at the atheism of Lucretius and his great master. They do > not perceive that that which offends them is not the 1ns in the swerving > atoms, because they themselves are just as much advocates of 1ns as the > ancient Atomists were. But what they cannot accept is the attribution of this > 1ns to things perfectly dead and material. Now I am quite with them there. I > think too that whatever is 1st is ipso factosentient. If I make atoms > swerve--as I do--I make them swerve but very very little, because I conceive > they are not absolutely dead. And by that I do not mean exactly that I hold > them to be physically such as the materialists hold them to be, only with a > small dose of sentiency superadded. For that, I grant, would be feeble > enough. But what I mean is, that all that there is, is 1st, Feelings; 2nd, > Efforts; 3rd, Habits--all of which are more familiar to us on their psychical > side than on their physical side; and that dead matter would be merely the > final result of the complete induration of habit reducing the free play of > feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death. (CP 6:201, > 1898) > > > He does not mention consciousness here, but in accordance with tychism, he > maintains that "atoms swerve" because "they are not absolutely dead," i.e., > their habits have not reached a state of "complete induration" and will not > do so until the infinite future. This entails that they are "ipso facto > sentient," but not because "a small dose of sentiency" has been "superadded" > to their physicality. On the contrary, in accordance with objective idealism, > he views "the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as > primordial," such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming > physical laws" (CP 6.24-25, EP 1:292-293, 1891). > > > In that sense, mind is ubiquitous, along with consciousness understood as > synonymous with feeling, but not self-consciousness. "What is meant by > consciousness is really in itself nothing but feeling. ... What the > psychologists study is mind, not consciousness exclusively. Their mistake > upon this point has had a singularly disastrous result, because consciousness > is a very simple thing. Only take care not to make the blunder of supposing > that Self-consciousness is meant, and it will be seen that consciousness is > nothing but Feeling, in general" (CP 7.364-365, 1902). > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to > repair / update all the links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY > ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
