Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Frank Wimberly]

The student should focus on the word danger, which the Lab Tech should have
used.  I politely ignore bad advice.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 4:43 PM Eric Charles 
wrote:

> Frank,  let's run with that!
>
> Assuming it was stupid to bring up atoms, how SHOULD the student respond?
> Verbally and behaviorally?
>
> How do you typically respond to stupid advice? :- )
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 6:19 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> My conclusion:  the Lab Tech was dumb for mentioning atoms.
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 3:21 PM Eric Charles <
>> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Two preliminaries:
>>> 1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner
>>> than the one Mike thinks I am but Mike is correct in seeing that I
>>> don't want to let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly
>>> valid for Nick to point out that he is proud of any student who takes
>>> *anything *from one course to another, but that doesn't speak to
>>> whether he would be happy or not seeing this particular interaction play
>>> out due to the effects of his teaching.
>>>
>>> 2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was
>>> exactly excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated
>>> understanding of the situation that matches what they would like to have a
>>> student glean from their classrooms. In the email I am currently replying
>>> to, Nick says something like "I don't recognize the student as saying what
>>> I would say" and to that I reply "Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in
>>> for you, they are a person your teachings have significantly influenced.
>>> The student, *like you*, doesn't see the role that "real" or "fact" play in
>>> the conversation, and *like you* any hint of "essentialism", especially
>>> connected with something that sounds like a crude "materialism", makes her
>>> scoff.
>>>
>>> The basics of the initial scenario are:
>>> A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than
>>> complying with that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the
>>> words used in the warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn
>>> a thing or two about philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical
>>> sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). The lab tech doesn't give a shit
>>> about any of that, and reiterates the safety warning, elaborating it in
>>> ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words like "fact" and "atoms".
>>> The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor fellow can't even
>>> understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think better. As you
>>> listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be *exactly* what you
>>> would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is *trying* to do the
>>> type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that what is happening
>>> is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of the back and
>>> forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than complying
>>> with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged with
>>> maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab.
>>>
>>> And the basic questions to Nick were:
>>> How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound
>>> like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
>>> message gone awry?
>>>
>>> In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the
>>> interaction even more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction -
>>> that the student was responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy -
>>> was even more obvious. As the conversation continues, the increasingly
>>> exasperated lab tech brings in more and more potentially-irrelevant terms
>>> and concepts for the student to smugly nit pick, until eventually the
>>> thing-being-warned-about actually occurs and several people are grievously
>>> injured.
>>>
>>> How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look
>>> something like this:
>>> 1) No, I would *not *be happy if I overheard that interaction.
>>> 2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where
>>> I explained Y.
>>> 3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared
>>> about understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I
>>> imagine anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up
>>> pretty well with Mike's dialog.)
>>>
>>> If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out,
>>> I still want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student
>>> seems to have a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the
>>> conversational side of things, i.e., given that the student is saying
>>> things to the Lab Tech that are very close to what you (Nick) 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Frank,  let's run with that!

Assuming it was stupid to bring up atoms, how SHOULD the student respond?
Verbally and behaviorally?

How do you typically respond to stupid advice? :- )

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 6:19 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> My conclusion:  the Lab Tech was dumb for mentioning atoms.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 3:21 PM Eric Charles 
> wrote:
>
>> Two preliminaries:
>> 1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner
>> than the one Mike thinks I am but Mike is correct in seeing that I
>> don't want to let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly
>> valid for Nick to point out that he is proud of any student who takes
>> *anything *from one course to another, but that doesn't speak to whether
>> he would be happy or not seeing this particular interaction play out due to
>> the effects of his teaching.
>>
>> 2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was
>> exactly excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated
>> understanding of the situation that matches what they would like to have a
>> student glean from their classrooms. In the email I am currently replying
>> to, Nick says something like "I don't recognize the student as saying what
>> I would say" and to that I reply "Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in
>> for you, they are a person your teachings have significantly influenced.
>> The student, *like you*, doesn't see the role that "real" or "fact" play in
>> the conversation, and *like you* any hint of "essentialism", especially
>> connected with something that sounds like a crude "materialism", makes her
>> scoff.
>>
>> The basics of the initial scenario are:
>> A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than complying
>> with that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the words
>> used in the warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn a
>> thing or two about philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical
>> sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). The lab tech doesn't give a shit
>> about any of that, and reiterates the safety warning, elaborating it in
>> ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words like "fact" and "atoms".
>> The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor fellow can't even
>> understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think better. As you
>> listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be *exactly* what you
>> would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is *trying* to do the
>> type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that what is happening
>> is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of the back and
>> forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than complying
>> with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged with
>> maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab.
>>
>> And the basic questions to Nick were:
>> How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound
>> like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
>> message gone awry?
>>
>> In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the interaction
>> even more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction - that the
>> student was responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy - was even
>> more obvious. As the conversation continues, the increasingly exasperated
>> lab tech brings in more and more potentially-irrelevant terms and concepts
>> for the student to smugly nit pick, until eventually the
>> thing-being-warned-about actually occurs and several people are grievously
>> injured.
>>
>> How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look something
>> like this:
>> 1) No, I would *not *be happy if I overheard that interaction.
>> 2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where I
>> explained Y.
>> 3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared
>> about understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I
>> imagine anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up
>> pretty well with Mike's dialog.)
>>
>> If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out, I
>> still want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student
>> seems to have a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the
>> conversational side of things, i.e., given that the student is saying
>> things to the Lab Tech that are very close to what you (Nick) would say in
>> the student's place, what exactly is it that she failed to appreciate about
>> the point of view you were presenting?
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Friends,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not
>>> well understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent
>>> charac

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2]

And the student for mentioning pragmatism.  

 

Get those chemicals off the bench, and THEN you can ride your high horses. 

 

That’s the little-p pragmatist in me speaking. 

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 6:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

 

My conclusion:  the Lab Tech was dumb for mentioning atoms.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 3:21 PM Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Two preliminaries:
1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner than 
the one Mike thinks I am but Mike is correct in seeing that I don't want to 
let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly valid for Nick to 
point out that he is proud of any student who takes anything from one course to 
another, but that doesn't speak to whether he would be happy or not seeing this 
particular interaction play out due to the effects of his teaching. 

2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was exactly 
excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated understanding of the 
situation that matches what they would like to have a student glean from their 
classrooms. In the email I am currently replying to, Nick says something like 
"I don't recognize the student as saying what I would say" and to that I reply 
"Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in for you, they are a person your 
teachings have significantly influenced.  The student, *like you*, doesn't see 
the role that "real" or "fact" play in the conversation, and *like you* any 
hint of "essentialism", especially connected with something that sounds like a 
crude "materialism", makes her scoff.  

 

The basics of the initial scenario are: 

A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than complying with 
that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the words used in the 
warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn a thing or two about 
philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). 
The lab tech doesn't give a shit about any of that, and reiterates the safety 
warning, elaborating it in ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words 
like "fact" and "atoms". The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor 
fellow can't even understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think 
better. As you listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be 
*exactly* what you would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is 
*trying* to do the type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that 
what is happening is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of 
the back and forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than 
complying with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged 
with maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab. 

And the basic questions to Nick were:
How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like 
the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended message 
gone awry?

In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the interaction even 
more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction - that the student was 
responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy - was even more obvious. 
As the conversation continues, the increasingly exasperated lab tech brings in 
more and more potentially-irrelevant terms and concepts for the student to 
smugly nit pick, until eventually the thing-being-warned-about actually occurs 
and several people are grievously injured.  

 

How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look something like 
this: 

1) No, I would not be happy if I overheard that interaction.
2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where I 
explained Y.
3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared about 
understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I imagine 
anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up pretty well 
with Mike's dialog.) 


 

If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out, I still 
want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student seems to have 
a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the conversational side of 
things, i.e., given that the student is saying things to the Lab Tech that are 
very close to what you (Nick) would say in the student's place

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Frank Wimberly]

My conclusion:  the Lab Tech was dumb for mentioning atoms.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 3:21 PM Eric Charles 
wrote:

> Two preliminaries:
> 1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner
> than the one Mike thinks I am but Mike is correct in seeing that I
> don't want to let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly
> valid for Nick to point out that he is proud of any student who takes
> *anything *from one course to another, but that doesn't speak to whether
> he would be happy or not seeing this particular interaction play out due to
> the effects of his teaching.
>
> 2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was
> exactly excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated
> understanding of the situation that matches what they would like to have a
> student glean from their classrooms. In the email I am currently replying
> to, Nick says something like "I don't recognize the student as saying what
> I would say" and to that I reply "Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in
> for you, they are a person your teachings have significantly influenced.
> The student, *like you*, doesn't see the role that "real" or "fact" play in
> the conversation, and *like you* any hint of "essentialism", especially
> connected with something that sounds like a crude "materialism", makes her
> scoff.
>
> The basics of the initial scenario are:
> A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than complying
> with that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the words
> used in the warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn a
> thing or two about philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical
> sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). The lab tech doesn't give a shit
> about any of that, and reiterates the safety warning, elaborating it in
> ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words like "fact" and "atoms".
> The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor fellow can't even
> understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think better. As you
> listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be *exactly* what you
> would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is *trying* to do the
> type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that what is happening
> is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of the back and
> forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than complying
> with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged with
> maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab.
>
> And the basic questions to Nick were:
> How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound
> like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
> message gone awry?
>
> In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the interaction
> even more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction - that the
> student was responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy - was even
> more obvious. As the conversation continues, the increasingly exasperated
> lab tech brings in more and more potentially-irrelevant terms and concepts
> for the student to smugly nit pick, until eventually the
> thing-being-warned-about actually occurs and several people are grievously
> injured.
>
> How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look something
> like this:
> 1) No, I would *not *be happy if I overheard that interaction.
> 2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where I
> explained Y.
> 3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared about
> understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I imagine
> anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up pretty well
> with Mike's dialog.)
>
> If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out, I
> still want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student
> seems to have a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the
> conversational side of things, i.e., given that the student is saying
> things to the Lab Tech that are very close to what you (Nick) would say in
> the student's place, what exactly is it that she failed to appreciate about
> the point of view you were presenting?
> 
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM  wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not
>> well understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent
>> characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how
>> to
>>
>> relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is
>> trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce
>> position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to
>> understand Peirce insofar as he agrees wit

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Two preliminaries:
1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner
than the one Mike thinks I am but Mike is correct in seeing that I
don't want to let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly
valid for Nick to point out that he is proud of any student who takes
*anything *from one course to another, but that doesn't speak to whether he
would be happy or not seeing this particular interaction play out due to
the effects of his teaching.

2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was
exactly excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated
understanding of the situation that matches what they would like to have a
student glean from their classrooms. In the email I am currently replying
to, Nick says something like "I don't recognize the student as saying what
I would say" and to that I reply "Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in
for you, they are a person your teachings have significantly influenced.
The student, *like you*, doesn't see the role that "real" or "fact" play in
the conversation, and *like you* any hint of "essentialism", especially
connected with something that sounds like a crude "materialism", makes her
scoff.

The basics of the initial scenario are:
A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than complying
with that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the words
used in the warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn a
thing or two about philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical
sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). The lab tech doesn't give a shit
about any of that, and reiterates the safety warning, elaborating it in
ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words like "fact" and "atoms".
The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor fellow can't even
understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think better. As you
listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be *exactly* what you
would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is *trying* to do the
type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that what is happening
is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of the back and
forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than complying
with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged with
maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab.

And the basic questions to Nick were:
How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound
like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
message gone awry?

In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the interaction
even more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction - that the
student was responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy - was even
more obvious. As the conversation continues, the increasingly exasperated
lab tech brings in more and more potentially-irrelevant terms and concepts
for the student to smugly nit pick, until eventually the
thing-being-warned-about actually occurs and several people are grievously
injured.

How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look something
like this:
1) No, I would *not *be happy if I overheard that interaction.
2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where I
explained Y.
3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared about
understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I imagine
anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up pretty well
with Mike's dialog.)

If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out, I
still want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student
seems to have a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the
conversational side of things, i.e., given that the student is saying
things to the Lab Tech that are very close to what you (Nick) would say in
the student's place, what exactly is it that she failed to appreciate about
the point of view you were presenting?



On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM  wrote:

> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not
> well understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent
> characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how
> to
>
> relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is
> trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce
> position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to
> understand Peirce insofar as he agrees with James.  But I cannot even
> follow those usual themes through the present discussion.
>
>
>
> Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me.  Of course the web of
> terms employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad
> network of knowledge concerning when things explode.  And I suppose,
> therefore, Mike might see me as anti-

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Frank Wimberly]

It's not called breakfast at noon.  I am wearing black socks.  During the
Korean War my dad would say that he had to wear his blue uniform.  I would
say that it wasn't blue but black.  I have it stored away.  There's nothing
blue about it.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 9:28 AM  wrote:

> Mike and Eric,
>
>
>
> I have deleted Jon from this thread because I  have reason to believe is
> bores him.
>
>
>
> I woke up this morning with my own version of the pragmaticist maxim.
>
>
>
> *The thing is just all the evidence of the thing.  *
>
>
>
> And then I realized that there is a paradox hidden in that proposed
> aphorism that irritates me.  That makes me want to rewrite it perhaps as
> follows:
>
>
>
> *The thing is a model inspired by all the evidence of the thing.*
>
>
>
> Now I have gotten very close to Peirce’s:
>
>
>
> *All thought is in signs.*
>
>
>
> My monism is pretty primitive, childlike, even.  God aside, all that is
> comes to
>
> us through experience, including of course, via experiences of other’s
> experiences.  Now, I quickly have to admit that some experience is built
> into our bodies through natural selection.  But then, I think, I am done
> making concessions.
>
>
>
> I am perhaps guilty, in the first instance, of trying to keep an argument
> alive.  Perhaps I should have said I find the original hypothetical just
> stupid.  Whether we are talking of atoms or talking of flasks, we are
> always talking of consequences, relations in experience.  When we speak of
> flasks, the web of experience to which we refer is teensy; when we speak of
> atoms, it is vast.
>
>
>
> As you both should know by now, I find arguments between different kinds
> of monists nugatory.  Once one has declared oneself a monist,  which kind
> of monist one is, as Peirce would say, is “Just a matter of language.”
>  Arguing for one form or another, except as a matter of taste, demeans the
> cause and reveals the contestants as closet dualists.   I would not have
> encouraged my student to “accuse” the tech of “materialism”.  I find
> switching back and forth between Holt’s materialism and Perry’s neutral
> monism largely inconsequential.  Like deciding whether to wear black or
> dark blue socks today.
>
>
>
> What follows in your discussion is fascinating, and sounds like perhaps
> the beginning of an essay.  However, I don’t think it has much to do with
> my admittedly primitive monism.  Now that Mike is really retired, I would
> love to hitch his wagon to our “Cognitive Psychology Sucks” star, either as
> a collaborator or a worthy opponent.  For reasons I cannot justify, I want
> to continue to publsh.  But ever since my first success (which seems
> miraculous in retrospect) I have been unable to hitch Mike’s wagon to any
> star at all.  I am not sure he shares (you share) Eric’s and my pitiably
> narcissitic desire to see our names in academic journals.  Indeed, I am not
> even sure that Eric will share that desire, now that he has been promoted
> to God at OMB.
>
>
>
> So now I am going to have some breakfast.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:51 PM
> *To:* 'Eric Charles' 
> *Cc:* 'M. D. Bybee' ; 'Jon Zingale' <
> jonzing...@gmail.com>; friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not
> well understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent
> characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how
> to
>
> relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is
> trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce
> position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to
> understand Peirce insofar as he agrees with James.  But I cannot even
> follow those usual themes through the present discussion.
>
>
>
> Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me.  Of course the web of
> terms employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad
> network of knowledge concerning when things explode.  And I suppose,
> therefore, Mike might see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when
> I stress the relation between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
> and bad consequences.  I accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him
> making it.
>
>
>
> Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be
> careful so it doesn't happen.
> Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if
> certain experiences happen now.
> Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean...
> yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under
> certain circumstances in the future, *but the chemical react

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2]

Mike and Eric, 

 

I have deleted Jon from this thread because I  have reason to believe is bores 
him.

 

I woke up this morning with my own version of the pragmaticist maxim.

 

The thing is just all the evidence of the thing.  

 

And then I realized that there is a paradox hidden in that proposed aphorism 
that irritates me.  That makes me want to rewrite it perhaps as follows: 

 

The thing is a model inspired by all the evidence of the thing.

 

Now I have gotten very close to Peirce’s:

 

All thought is in signs.

 

My monism is pretty primitive, childlike, even.  God aside, all that is comes to

us through experience, including of course, via experiences of other’s 
experiences.  Now, I quickly have to admit that some experience is built into 
our bodies through natural selection.  But then, I think, I am done making 
concessions.   

 

I am perhaps guilty, in the first instance, of trying to keep an argument 
alive.  Perhaps I should have said I find the original hypothetical just 
stupid.  Whether we are talking of atoms or talking of flasks, we are always 
talking of consequences, relations in experience.  When we speak of flasks, the 
web of experience to which we refer is teensy; when we speak of atoms, it is 
vast.  

 

As you both should know by now, I find arguments between different kinds of 
monists nugatory.  Once one has declared oneself a monist,  which kind of 
monist one is, as Peirce would say, is “Just a matter of language.”  Arguing 
for one form or another, except as a matter of taste, demeans the cause and 
reveals the contestants as closet dualists.   I would not have encouraged my 
student to “accuse” the tech of “materialism”.  I find switching back and forth 
between Holt’s materialism and Perry’s neutral monism largely inconsequential.  
Like deciding whether to wear black or dark blue socks today. 

 

What follows in your discussion is fascinating, and sounds like perhaps the 
beginning of an essay.  However, I don’t think it has much to do with my 
admittedly primitive monism.  Now that Mike is really retired, I would love to 
hitch his wagon to our “Cognitive Psychology Sucks” star, either as a 
collaborator or a worthy opponent.  For reasons I cannot justify, I want to 
continue to publsh.  But ever since my first success (which seems miraculous in 
retrospect) I have been unable to hitch Mike’s wagon to any star at all.  I am 
not sure he shares (you share) Eric’s and my pitiably narcissitic desire to see 
our names in academic journals.  Indeed, I am not even sure that Eric will 
share that desire, now that he has been promoted to God at OMB. 

 

So now I am going to have some breakfast. 

 

Nick

 

 

Nick Thompson

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: thompnicks...@gmail.com  
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:51 PM
To: 'Eric Charles' 
Cc: 'M. D. Bybee' ; 'Jon Zingale' 
; friam@redfish.com
Subject: RE: Nick's monism kick

 

Dear Friends,  

 

Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not well 
understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent 
characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how to

relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is trying to 
represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce position insofar 
as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to understand Peirce insofar as 
he agrees with James.  But I cannot even follow those usual themes through the 
present discussion.  

 

Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me.  Of course the web of terms 
employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad network of 
knowledge concerning when things explode.  And I suppose, therefore, Mike might 
see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when I stress the relation 
between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES and bad consequences.  I 
accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him making it.  

 

Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be careful 
so it doesn't happen.  
Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if 
certain experiences happen now. 
Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... 
yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under 
certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the damage 
it could cause are well known facts.

 

I never really understood how the words real and facts are working in this 
hypothetical and why the Labtech thinks that their safety, in the instant, is 
better guaranteed by knowing about atoms, than by knowing to keep the two 
flasks separate.  

 

As for the rest, I am completely lost.  I really need to pull it out into a 
single document and study the damn thing.  I am torn between an impulse to 
ca

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2]

Dear Friends,  

 

Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not well 
understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent 
characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how to

relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is trying to 
represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce position insofar 
as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to understand Peirce insofar as 
he agrees with James.  But I cannot even follow those usual themes through the 
present discussion.  

 

Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me.  Of course the web of terms 
employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad network of 
knowledge concerning when things explode.  And I suppose, therefore, Mike might 
see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when I stress the relation 
between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES and bad consequences.  I 
accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him making it.  

 

Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be careful 
so it doesn't happen.  
Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if 
certain experiences happen now. 
Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... 
yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under 
certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the damage 
it could cause are well known facts.

 

I never really understood how the words real and facts are working in this 
hypothetical and why the Labtech thinks that their safety, in the instant, is 
better guaranteed by knowing about atoms, than by knowing to keep the two 
flasks separate.  

 

As for the rest, I am completely lost.  I really need to pull it out into a 
single document and study the damn thing.  I am torn between an impulse to 
capitalize on Mike’s participation and the fact that I have much else on my 
plate right now. 

 

Are we perhaps writing something here?   If so, I will  try to do my best to 
put aside everything else and pitch in.  

 

I love you guys, honest!

 

Nick 

Nick Thompson

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Nicholas Thompson  
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM
To: Eric Charles 
Cc: M. D. Bybee ; Jon Zingale ; 
friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: Nick's monism kick

 

I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence no 
Internet.

 

But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will get back 
to you when I do not have to thumb my answer.

N

Sent from my Dumb Phone


On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Nick, 

You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought of a 
good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting discussion, which 
is why others are copied here.) 

 

Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been 
tentatively including your current monism more and more in some of the classes. 
When walking by the Chemistry labs, you recognize the voice of an enthusiastic 
student you had last quarter,, and you start to ease drop. The conversation is 
as follows:

Lab tech: Be careful with that! If it mixes with the potassium solution, it can 
become explosive, we would have to evacuate the building.
Student: What do you mean?
Lab tech: If the potassium mixes with chlorides at the right ratio, then we are 
*probably* safe while it is in solution, but if it dries up, it is a hard-core 
explosive and it wouldn't take much to level the whole building. We would have 
to take that threat seriously, and evacuate the building until I made the 
solution safe. 
Student: Oh, a predictions about future experiences, I like those! 
Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be careful 
so it doesn't happen.  
Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if 
certain experiences happen now. 
Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... 
yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under 
certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the damage 
it could cause are well known facts. Look, man, if you aren't here to learn how 
to be safe with the chemicals, then maybe you should just leave. 
Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!? You 
know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's 
experiences all the way down!

Listening in, you can tell that the student is taking this line based on your 
influence, because it sounds like things they were kinda-sorta starting to 
grock in your class. 

How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like th

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Well... yes but of course we recognize that Mike is reading into the
student exactly the sophistication I did not give her, which makes his
version a much better dialog for illustrating certain points, at the
expense of me trying to gut-punch Nick by having him overhear a student
completely missing the point of what he tried to teach her.

Mike gives a "Hooray" for Nick not falling into a trap of thinking
philosophical materialism or anti-materialism is relevant to the activities
of the chemistry or psychology lab, and that might or might not be
warranted. But in my dialog, Nick's sophomoric sophomore student *is* making
that mistake, and is endangering people because of that. That student
thinks the lab tech is an idiot for approaching the world in a materialist
fashion, and further thinks she can dismiss a safety warning because the
person who gave the warning is an unsophisticated thinker.

So let me make this a bit more extreme *again.*

Let's say that instead of hearing this in a hallway, Nick is watching it
play out on a video recording. At some point, the video is paused, and Nick
is asked what he thinks. Nick replies back as he did to my initial post
(modified slightly, including changed to in present tense):

I am proud of the student, proud that she has carried anything from the
psych building to the chemistry building. I am also proud of her for
holding her ground with the lab tech, even when such heavy artillery is
brought to bear on her.



As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.
First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some
consequences are more… um… consequential than others” On that point, I
agree with him.



But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab
technique, as if they become more consequential when they are understood in
atomic terms.  As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their
“atomicness”.  This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy
essentialism, I and want no part of it.  I would have been even more proud
of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes no
sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous here, what I must be
steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular
circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention,
find itself under those circumstances. True, atomic principles might help
me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the
explosion, not in the atoms."


The person playing the tape pauses, slightly stunned by this rather
academic reply, and solemnly says "I take it you did not hear about the
explosion in the psychology lab?"

Nick gasps and says "What?!? No I hadn't!" Then, looking around the room
more keenly, he realizes there are not just academic muckety-mucks who
might be here to critique his teaching, but also some people taking notes
who might well be law enforcement of some type.

The person playing the tape continues: "After all of those things you were
so *proud *to see her to say, things continued. If I keep playing the tape
you will see the student disregard all the warnings that were given,
complaining, just as you did, about how the lab tech is clearly an
essentialist-thinker, who doesn't appreciate how irrelevant atomic terms
are to human action. She said, verbatim *almost *all the things you just
said you would be proud to hear her say, and then more about how
materialism was a faulty basis for a philosophy, and something about how it
was all just inferences all the way down anyway. The only part she didn't
say was any indication she took his warnings seriously in any way. She
stopped at the part where she said she wanted no part in such a creepy
and stupid conversation. Then she refused to leave the lab and kept right
on doing what she was doing before the lab tech gave her the warning, and
the lab tech couldn't stop her fast enough. And the recording ends with
just a flash. They are both dead now, along with several other students and
faculty members who were in the building at the time."



The essential point of the initial dialog was that the student was exactly
*not* doing the extra bit of mental work Nick said he would have been
extra-proud of at the end, to understand that *whatever words the lab tech
was using*, the intent was to constrain action in accordance with known
risk. The student's obsession with the level-of-clarity of the thought
being expressed (which Mike emphasized) and with minutia about the words
being used (which Nick emphasized) *stopped* the smug and pretentious
student from heeding the warning. In the initial scenario, that refusal
simply led to the student being kicked out of the lab. Apparently her being
kicked out of the lab on those particular grounds made Nick proud of the
student, which presumably entails feeling good about himself as a teacher.
But surely t

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[glen]

And you dismissed my perfectly valid response as "churlish". EricC also replied 
with an extension of the dialog.

https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2022-September/093314.html

On 9/23/22 13:49, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Yes, and I sent you a brief description of freshman year at Carnegie Tech 
in1961-62.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:24 PM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Did you guys not get this?

__ __

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com 

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 


__ __

*From:* thompnicks...@gmail.com  
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 2:59 PM
*To:* 'Mike Bybee' mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net>>; 'Eric 
Charles' mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com>>; 
friam@redfish.com 
*Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick

__ __

I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My 
response to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument, which 
he himself disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single operation 
or even by operations within a single paradigm is operationism, which I, as a 
pragmatist, condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable operations is the 
pragmaticist “meaning” of the concept.  Now, in disavowing this “Quantitative” 
distinction between operationism and pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for 
some “essence” which is aside from all operations that might flow from adoption 
of the concept.  I wrote you both about this, and neither has replied. 

__ __

Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that 
she has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry building.  
Most students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass out into the 
quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her ground with the lab 
tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear on her. 

__ __

As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  
First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some 
consequences are more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat 
of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences 
are consequences.  We could do experiments on them. 

__ __

But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire 
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as 
if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As 
if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt 
to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I 
would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, 
“Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous 
here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances 
under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though 
inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles 
might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the 
explosion, not in the atoms. 

! 

In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a chemistry 
experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an explosion.  The 
students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as it happened), on the 
ground that the two chemicals involved /could not have exploded! /The chemistry 
department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean threw they out, but with a Deanly 
wink encouraging application for re-admission in the following year. 

__ __

Have I answered your question?

__ __

n

__ __

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com 

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 


__ __

*From:* Mike Bybee mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net>>
*Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
*To:* 'Nicholas Thompson' mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>; 
'Eric Charles' mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com>>; 
friam@redfish.com 
*Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
*Importance:* High

__ __

__ __

__ __

     I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this. 

     Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin? 


     I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here. 

     First, it’s in the context of chemistry, 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Frank Wimberly]

Yes, and I sent you a brief description of freshman year at Carnegie Tech
in1961-62.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:24 PM  wrote:

> Did you guys not get this?
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 2:59 PM
> *To:* 'Mike Bybee' ; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' ; friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My
> response to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument,
> which he himself disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single
> operation or even by operations within a single paradigm is operationism,
> which I, as a pragmatist, condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable
> operations is the pragmaticist “meaning” of the concept.  Now, in
> disavowing this “Quantitative” distinction between operationism and
> pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for some “essence” which is aside
> from all operations that might flow from adoption of the concept.  I wrote
> you both about this, and neither has replied.
>
>
>
> Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that
> she has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry
> building.  Most students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass
> out into the quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her
> ground with the lab tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear
> on her.
>
>
>
> As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.
> First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some
> consequences are more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the
> heat of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional
> consequences are consequences.  We could do experiments on them.
>
>
>
> But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire
> consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab
> technique, as if they become more consequention when they are understood in
> atomic terms.  As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their
> “atomicness”.  This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy
> essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I would have been even more
> proud of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes
> no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous here, what I must be
> steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular
> circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention,
> find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles might help
> me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the
> explosion, not in the atoms.
>
> !
>
> In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a
> chemistry experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an
> explosion.  The students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as
> it happened), on the ground that the two chemicals involved *could not
> have exploded!  *The chemistry department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean
> threw they out, but with a Deanly wink encouraging application for
> re-admission in the following year.
>
>
>
> Have I answered your question?
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Bybee 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
> *To:* 'Nicholas Thompson' ; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' ; friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this.
>
> Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin?
>
> I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here.
>
> First, it’s in the context of chemistry, Peirce’s paradigm for
> how-to-do-philosophy, so this makes Peirce’s point perfectly.
>
> Second, Eric has situated it as a discussion between a lab
> tech and a student, not between a chemistry professor and a student.  That
> makes the whole thing far more poignant—but makes the whole tension between
> the Peirce’s levels of discourse so in-your-face as well.
>
> Anyway,
>
> I’m really curious to see how Nick will address Eric’s
> adventitious example, and I don’t want this to get lost in the autumn
> leaves!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:47 AM
> *To:* Eric Charles 
> *Cc:* M. D. Bybee ; Jon Zingale <
> jonzing...@gmail.com>; friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence
> no Internet.
>
>
>
>

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2]

Did you guys not get this?

 

Nick Thompson

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: thompnicks...@gmail.com  
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:59 PM
To: 'Mike Bybee' ; 'Eric Charles' 

Cc: 'Jon Zingale' ; friam@redfish.com
Subject: RE: Nick's monism kick

 

I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My response 
to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument, which he himself 
disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single operation or even by 
operations within a single paradigm is operationism, which I, as a pragmatist, 
condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable operations is the pragmaticist 
“meaning” of the concept.  Now, in disavowing this “Quantitative” distinction 
between operationism and pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for some 
“essence” which is aside from all operations that might flow from adoption of 
the concept.  I wrote you both about this, and neither has replied.  

 

Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that she 
has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry building.  Most 
students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass out into the 
quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her ground with the lab 
tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear on her.  

 

As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  First he 
appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some consequences are 
more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat of that 
explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences are 
consequences.  We could do experiments on them.  

 

But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire 
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as 
if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As 
if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt 
to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I 
would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, 
“Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous 
here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances 
under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though 
inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles 
might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the 
explosion, not in the atoms.  

! 

In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a chemistry 
experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an explosion.  The 
students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as it happened), on the 
ground that the two chemicals involved could not have exploded!  The chemistry 
department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean threw they out, but with a Deanly 
wink encouraging application for re-admission in the following year.  

 

Have I answered your question?

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Mike Bybee mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net> > 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
To: 'Nicholas Thompson' mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >; 'Eric Charles' 
mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >
Cc: 'Jon Zingale' mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com> >; 
friam@redfish.com  
Subject: RE: Nick's monism kick
Importance: High

 

 

 

I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this.  

Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin?  

I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here.  

First, it’s in the context of chemistry, Peirce’s paradigm for 
how-to-do-philosophy, so this makes Peirce’s point perfectly.  

Second, Eric has situated it as a discussion between a lab tech and 
a student, not between a chemistry professor and a student.  That makes the 
whole thing far more poignant—but makes the whole tension between the Peirce’s 
levels of discourse so in-your-face as well.  

Anyway, 

I’m really curious to see how Nick will address Eric’s adventitious 
example, and I don’t want this to get lost in the autumn leaves!  

 

 

 

 

 

From: Nicholas Thompson 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >
Cc: M. D. Bybee mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net> >; 
Jon Zingale mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com> >; 
friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: Nick's monism kick

 

I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence no 
Internet.

 

But I like the question so well I

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Mike captures key aspects of what I was trying to say very well: That there
are different types of conversations happening, and they involve different
levels of clarity.

Glen also picks up on the general assholery which might have been too
subtle for Nick, so I want to draw it out for a few more sentences and then
re-ask the base questions about what Nick thinks of the interactions. So,
starting from the end of the prior dialog
--
Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!?
You know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's
experiences all the way down!
Lab tech: Ok, whatever, I don't care about that right now. What I *need* is
for you to follow the safety procedures, which are in place for a reason.
And in particular, at this moment, I need you to be careful with the
chemicals that are on the desk.
Student:  The experience-chemicals on the
experience-desk? This is all just expectations about predictions! God you
are naive! You should really take Dr. Thompson's class!
Lab tech:  Seriously,
I think it's time for you to leave.
Student: What? Just because *you* are naive enough to believe in
materialism, *I* need to get out?!?
Lab tech: Apparently.
---

How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like
the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
message gone awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech
under the same circumstances?

What am I trying to emphasize more strongly:   Students who refuse to
follow safety procedures, because those procedures are just based on
materialist drivel, which Dr. Thompson taught them is crap, are, *I hope we
would all agree*, students who it is reasonable to kick out of the
chemistry lab. The intellectual activity of rejecting materialist-monism
has little, if any, connection with whether you should follow the
instructions you have been given for proper handling of "materials" in the
lab.

And further:   It would be understandable that if Nick started creating an
abundance of such students - students who refused to follow any
requests/rules/guidance that seemed rooted in materialist thought - it
would eventually lead to some serious strain between Nick and his
colleagues.

To try to draw out the latter points: If Nick were teaching at Columbia, or
UCLA, and his students routinely interacted with students and faculty in
the Material Science program, AND the typical form of such interaction was
an incredulous "What? You believe in material?!? I'm embarrassed for you!",
that would be a far cry from the intention of whatever lesson Nick was
trying to teach them right? Rejecting *material*ism as a foundational
philosophical principle has f^ck all to do with whether your *material* of
choice when building a jet engine fan should be aluminium or titanium
right?




On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Mike Bybee  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me summarize, if I can:
>
> First, the distinction between operationalism and praxis-ism
> and the praxis-ist definition of definition.
>
> Percy Bridgman’s operationalism insists that every operation
> denotes a separate concept.  That is, the concept ‘length’ when determined
> by a tape measure is a different concept than the concept ‘length’
> determined by a ruler.
>
> Peirce (following what Lavoisier does instead of what
> Lavoisier says) says that a given concept is determined by all the praxis /
> experimental determinations combined.  This reflects his remarks on
> consilience and so on.
>
> So much for operationalism and pragmatism (qua praxis-ism, not
> utilitarianism or expediency-ism).
>
> Would you say that agrees with your sense, Nick?  So far, so
> good?
>
>
>
> But now I’m not sure to what extent we see Eric’s imagined
> dialogue from the same point of view.
>
> When it comes to discourse or to dialogues such as the one
> Eric imagined for us, Peirce has the notion of different “levels of
> clarity.”  His illustration is the concept of ‘reality.’  At the “level” of
> familiarity, nothing could be clearer than this, he says.  Then he says, “As
> for clearness in its second grade, however, it would probably puzzle most
> men, even among those of a reflective turn of mind, to give an abstract
> definition of the real.”  So, the next “level” up from familiarity is that
> level he calls “abstract definition.”
>
> But then (he says) “But, however satisfactory such a
> definition may be found, it would be a great mistake to suppose that it
> makes the idea of reality perfectly clear.”  We need to be clearer—and more
> distinct as well, I imagine.
>
> This is similar to so-called “provisional” terminology in
> Buddhism and “ultimate” terminology.  At the provision level we can speak
> about such things as fists and kicks and so on, but at the ultimate level
> (so to speak), we kn

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[glen]

It's unclear to me why friam@redfish.com was CC'ed. But I'll assume it's an 
open invitation to argue ...

The Student's response seems, to me, to be clear evidence of a Bad Faith contrarian. 
Anyone who has any interaction with any chemicals at all, knows the "language of a 
lab tech". The student, here, is simply being a jerk trying to talk in some out of 
context language. Or, alternatively, if the student is that stupid, they don't belong 
anywhere near a lab.

So, have you answered the question? Yes. You are like the student, a Bad Faith 
contrarian. >8^D

On 9/19/22 11:59, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:


As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  First he 
appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some consequences are 
more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat of that 
explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences are 
consequences.  We could do experiments on them.

But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire 
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as 
if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As 
if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt 
to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I 
would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, 
“Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous 
here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances 
under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though 
inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles 
might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the 
explosion, not in the atoms.


Have I answered your question?


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2]

I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My response 
to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument, which he himself 
disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single operation or even by 
operations within a single paradigm is operationism, which I, as a pragmatist, 
condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable operations is the pragmaticist 
“meaning” of the concept.  Now, in disavowing this “Quantitative” distinction 
between operationism and pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for some 
“essence” which is aside from all operations that might flow from adoption of 
the concept.  I wrote you both about this, and neither has replied.  

 

Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that she 
has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry building.  Most 
students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass out into the 
quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her ground with the lab 
tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear on her.  

 

As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  First he 
appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some consequences are 
more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat of that 
explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences are 
consequences.  We could do experiments on them.  

 

But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire 
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as 
if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As 
if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt 
to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I 
would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, 
“Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous 
here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances 
under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though 
inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles 
might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the 
explosion, not in the atoms.  

! 

In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a chemistry 
experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an explosion.  The 
students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as it happened), on the 
ground that the two chemicals involved could not have exploded!  The chemistry 
department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean threw they out, but with a Deanly 
wink encouraging application for re-admission in the following year.  

 

Have I answered your question?

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Mike Bybee  
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
To: 'Nicholas Thompson' ; 'Eric Charles' 

Cc: 'Jon Zingale' ; friam@redfish.com
Subject: RE: Nick's monism kick
Importance: High

 

 

 

I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this.  

Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin?  

I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here.  

First, it’s in the context of chemistry, Peirce’s paradigm for 
how-to-do-philosophy, so this makes Peirce’s point perfectly.  

Second, Eric has situated it as a discussion between a lab tech and 
a student, not between a chemistry professor and a student.  That makes the 
whole thing far more poignant—but makes the whole tension between the Peirce’s 
levels of discourse so in-your-face as well.  

Anyway, 

I’m really curious to see how Nick will address Eric’s adventitious 
example, and I don’t want this to get lost in the autumn leaves!  

 

 

 

 

 

From: Nicholas Thompson 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >
Cc: M. D. Bybee mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net> >; 
Jon Zingale mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com> >; 
friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: Nick's monism kick

 

I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence no 
Internet.

 

But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will get back 
to you when I do not have to thumb my answer.

N

Sent from my Dumb Phone


On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Nick, 

You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought of a 
good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting discussion, which 
is why others are copied here.) 

 

Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been 
tentatively including your current monism more a

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Nicholas Thompson]

I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence no 
Internet.

But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will get back 
to you when I do not have to thumb my answer.

N
Sent from my Dumb Phone

On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles  
wrote:


Nick, 
You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought of a 
good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting discussion, which 
is why others are copied here.) 

Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been 
tentatively including your current monism more and more in some of the classes. 
When walking by the Chemistry labs, you recognize the voice of an enthusiastic 
student you had last quarter,, and you start to ease drop. The conversation is 
as follows:

Lab tech: Be careful with that! If it mixes with the potassium solution, it can 
become explosive, we would have to evacuate the building.
Student: What do you mean?
Lab tech: If the potassium mixes with chlorides at the right ratio, then we are 
*probably* safe while it is in solution, but if it dries up, it is a hard-core 
explosive and it wouldn't take much to level the whole building. We would have 
to take that threat seriously, and evacuate the building until I made the 
solution safe. 
Student: Oh, a predictions about future experiences, I like those! 
Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be careful 
so it doesn't happen.  
Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if 
certain experiences happen now. 
Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... 
yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under 
certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the damage 
it could cause are well known facts. Look, man, if you aren't here to learn how 
to be safe with the chemicals, then maybe you should just leave. 
Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!? You 
know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's 
experiences all the way down!

Listening in, you can tell that the student is taking this line based on your 
influence, because it sounds like things they were kinda-sorta starting to 
grock in your class. 

How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like the 
student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended message gone 
awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech under the same 
circumstances? 






-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/