I especially like a video and books by Nessa Carey. Her video explains it so well that I added it to my educational playlist. Just search for her name on YouTube. It's great!

This is precisely where humanity has been misguided. There is a third window. Peirce illuminates it.

It's clear that there is a difference in how America developed this 'thought' compared to Europe, and it makes sense, since individual and religious freedom was the driving force in how America came to be. It was and is hyper-individual. Now we are dealing with it.

Thank you for posting it, as I will be avoiding link postings.

I appreciate your willingness to help. I can only say that understanding Peirce's thought is very difficult because it does not align with what is typically understood in our culture. There has to be some base knowledge of some of these topics in order to understand, and that can only come from reading the sources.

I do believe there are a few people here who understand my approach, and I look forward to our discussions. All I can hope for is that the others find some interest along the way. It's impossible to please everyone. I will always try to explain topics as clearly as possible.

Imagery, smell, etc.
For instance, there is one prominent study showing that when mice are taught to fear a particular smell, their offspring, and the subsequent offspring are born fearing that smell.

As our brain networking develops prenatally, we start creating a 'cognitive map' of our physical and metaphorical environment, creating a scaffold of semiotic understanding of our own model of reality. Everyone's is unique, because no person has the same experiences or is exposed to the same environmental factors. Every mapped connection in the brain is engrained, and leads to how future interactions or experiences are processed, incorporated. and mapped, leading to understanding or often 'misunderstanding'. If something is misunderstood, the person will incorporate new experiences in such a way as to make it fit with that misunderstanding. This happens in every human brain.

America was founded during a time in history when individual rights were front and center, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am", and mind/body dualism, was encouraging a freedom of individual thought, separating and elevating humans to a realm seemingly above nature, theologically in an attempt to understand the mind of God. We lost sight of the importance of shared understanding. Everyone wants to be right, when no one is. The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'.

Again, what am I to say other than nominalism and ontological individualism? Duns Scotus? These are my points. You keep asking me for points. I keep giving them. This is a philosophy forum. Are these terms not familiar to people here? Other members have stated that they want a better understanding of Peirce. I am only trying to comply.

There is nothing more I can say here, as I'm apparently not allowed to post links to the science. Enjoy the back and forth that seems to go nowhere.

Thank you!
You are the first person here to logically and intelligently open a thoughtful and potentially fruitful discussion!
Your points are good ones, and I want to address them properly. Let me respond appropriately when the day finally dawns here and I am at my computer instead of my phone. Again, thank you.

I'm here for discussion and dialogue, not debate. I love learning from others through reasonable dialogue. I wasn't trying to plug my website. If we are not allowed to mention our own website, why is it asked for in our profile? The topics involved are complex, and because of that I point to experts. But now I'm told that pointing to anything outside of this forum can be cause for removal. If that is the case, then all that is left is heated opinions and confrontations. I see no progress or learning in that, especially when I'm asked to explain something, then I do, but my response isn't even read, and I only receive more badgering. I'm not understanding the logic in that.

Perhaps it would be better if I were specifically told what it is I am requested to define. What precisely is it in my responses that is not understood?Highlight the word or phrase you do not understand. Not from my starting post, but from my response. ... I don't have time for bring toyed with. I am not leaving the forum, but I am leaving this thread.

Another non-reader. Geez!
I'm beginning to think that this forum is full of opinionated people with 'fixations of beliefs'. Sad.

If it appeases you to take that stance rather than read my posts and the links explaining the biology. So be it. I don't play games.

Not a theory. Please refer to my other post that someone said was too long. There are two links there to the science. I don't like to keep repeating myself if no one reads my posts.

What? Lol..

These contrary comments posted toward me are totally irrelevant.

Science is now starting to understand how the nervous system sends 'messages' of a sort to future generations. How my environment affects me epigenetically can affect gene expression in my children and their children, including passing down fears, attractions, etc. It's not just about genetic coding anymore. There is continuity in all things. We are still reacting to the experiences of our ancestors. So yes, you were 'kind of' there before you were conceived. And if you understand the science of prenatal and early childhood brain development, you can understand that continuation into the life you are experiencing now.

I do.

All I can do is invite you, and I have.

I no longer debate these things. I don't have to, or need to.

I've been on enough forums to understand the nature of debate threads. I also study logic, and have been and have participated in debates. Peirce was first and foremost a brilliant logician. You should get to know him.

Have a good night.

It is SOOO very true that most people want to talk about philosophy, the meaning of life, consciousness, and what happens when we die, but only if it's understood in a few words or minutes. It is the sad state of our dumbed-down 'commercial' length culture. ... Life, death, and consciousness are complex. I have been told by those who listen to my podcast that I do a good job of making complex topics easy to understand. That is my specialized training and education; explaining difficult topics to average people. But the one thing I can't do anything about is the people who don't want to learn.

Thank you for your insight. :)

This may provide some insight..... An excerpt from episode 4, but to fully understand you need to listen to or read starting with episode 1. .....

If we were to try and apply a commonly understood, modern analogy to the relationship between semiotics and archetypes, semiotics might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘software’ that engages in an exchange of activity that is external to ‘self’, while ‘archetypes’ might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘internal’ hardware, that is fundamental to knowledge as a ‘collective’, and provides the platform for what arises as semiotic cause and effect. Let me explain more of how I come to this analogy, but in order to do that I will need to backtrack a little to a field of study I mentioned in episode #1; Epigenetics’. ….
Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms cause by ‘modification’ to gene expression, rather than alterations to the genetic code itself. The Greek prefix ‘epi’ in epigenetics refers to features that are ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ the genetic basis for inheritance. What’s fascinating about this field of research is how these scientific discoveries are confirming that there is ‘continuity’ in all things, and every ‘thing’ is just an aspect or ‘mode’ of the greater Whole. For example, in a December 1st, 2013 Nature Neuroscience article, located online at http://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3603, researchers found that when mice are taught to fear a particular odor, both their offspring and the next generation are subsequently born fearing that same odor. The findings indicate that environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally. And in a more recent study published in the scientific journal ‘Cell’, found at www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30448-9.pdf, researchers confirmed that the nervous system ‘can’ transmit messages to future generations.
If we look at this with a parallel frame of mind regarding semiotics and archetypes, we can consider how semiotics is ‘epi’, or ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ primitive archetypes. In other words, what makes our species ‘human’ in a genetic sense is our common genetic code, and what makes our species human in a cognitive sense is our primitive and collectively common archetypes. Our genes are influenced by our environment, or Medium, per epigenetics, and expressed as creative diversity manifested over and above genetic copies. Our collective, cognitive foundation (archetypes) is also influenced by our environment, or Medium, per semiotics, and expressed as creatively diverse ideas, and manifested in our verbal, non-verbal, and written dialogue.

I have found that when someone doesn't understand Peirce, or synechism, they resort to accusations of that nature. I hope you'll decide to learn at some point. I think it is beneficial for anyone.

Absolutely not.

You would need to listen to the podcast episodes in order to follow it.... mappingthemedium.com
or you can read the transcripts at culturalmetapatterns.com ... Again, reading them in order to follow it.
There are four episodes now. More coming. Next up will be 'A Bird's Eye View'. Then, 'The Inside Out of Color'.

Here's the excerpt that may be the points you are seeking....

If we were to try and apply a commonly understood, modern analogy to the relationship between semiotics and archetypes, semiotics might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘software’ that engages in an exchange of activity that is external to ‘self’, while ‘archetypes’ might be thought of as the cognitive mapping ‘internal’ hardware, that is fundamental to knowledge as a ‘collective’, and provides the platform for what arises as semiotic cause and effect. Let me explain more of how I come to this analogy, but in order to do that I will need to backtrack a little to a field of study I mentioned in episode #1; Epigenetics’. ….
Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms cause by ‘modification’ to gene expression, rather than alterations to the genetic code itself. The Greek prefix ‘epi’ in epigenetics refers to features that are ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ the genetic basis for inheritance. What’s fascinating about this field of research is how these scientific discoveries are confirming that there is ‘continuity’ in all things, and every ‘thing’ is just an aspect or ‘mode’ of the greater Whole. For example, in a December 1st, 2013 Nature Neuroscience article, located online at http://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3603, researchers found that when mice are taught to fear a particular odor, both their offspring and the next generation are subsequently born fearing that same odor. The findings indicate that environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally. And in a more recent study published in the scientific journal ‘Cell’, found at www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30448-9.pdf, researchers confirmed that the nervous system ‘can’ transmit messages to future generations.
If we look at this with a parallel frame of mind regarding semiotics and archetypes, we can consider how semiotics is ‘epi’, or ‘on top of’ or ‘in addition to’ primitive archetypes. In other words, what makes our species ‘human’ in a genetic sense is our common genetic code, and what makes our species human in a cognitive sense is our primitive and collectively common archetypes. Our genes are influenced by our environment, or Medium, per epigenetics, and expressed as creative diversity manifested over and above genetic copies. Our collective, cognitive foundation (archetypes) is also influenced by our environment, or Medium, per semiotics, and expressed as creatively diverse ideas, and manifested in our verbal, non-verbal, and written dialogue.

Hello Brett,

I have found that many books written about Jung are kind of all over the place. I prefer to focus on how his work regarding archetypes, the collective unconscious, and active imagination aligns with the other thinkers I have in my list on my profile. Although I do see value in his views on the shadow, etc, the direction psychology has taken has pushed him back in many people's minds. I do talk about Jung in episode 4 of my podcast. Perhaps it would be of interest to you. I have found the best material on Jung by reading his letters, not in books that others have written about him. I prefer to go to the source whenever possible.

I understand your perspective. I hope you will take some time to understand mine.

"All the arguments of Zeno depend on supposing that a continuum has ultimate
parts. But a continuum is precisely that, every part of which has parts, in the same
sense." .....
CP 5.335 (commens.org)

Turtles all the way down? ;-)

Spinoza is best understood in relation to C. S. Peirce.
No, Spinoza was not holding us back. Spinoza was not fully understood in the shadow of Descartes. On my YouTube channel I have a playlist that I call 'My Freedom from Nominalism Worldview'. Most people believe they have to choose an either this or that from what is conventionally taught in western culture academia and theology. There is a path to understanding that didn't make the popular cut due to the lure of materialism and the ontological individualism of 'I think therefore I am'. Do a search for this ... "Shaken by Nominalism: The Theological Origins of Modernity" to get some insight, or visit my YouTube playlist for some excellent learning videos. I recommend watching them in order to best understand them. Make sure you click on the playlist tab.

Thank you! :) I will!

Thank you! :)

You might be interested in Mikhail Bakhtin. We only recognize self in relation to that which is not self.

It is important to include an understanding of how our brain develops and cognitively maps a model of reality, from conception on, and even prior when we include that science is now confirming that nervous systems can convey 'messages' to future generations via epigenetics. An individual cognitive model of reality is never the actual 'medium'. It is always cloaked. No matter who we are, or what opportunities we've had. The only way to get closer to a shared understanding is through dialogue. Just as synapses are not actually connected, but exchange information via chemical and electrical signals. As Bateson said, the territory never gets in due to representations, (maps of maps, ad infinitum). Consciousness extends beyond an individual brain.

If you take a look at my profile, you will see that Gregory Bateson is included in my list of favorite thinkers. In episode one of my podcast, it thoroughly explains cognitive mapping in relation to what Bateson had to say.

Your post boils down to 'the problem of universals'. The issue is in 'naming'.
As another poster mentioned, it is in our limited way in which we describe our world and existence via language. We must remember that definitions of words change over time. Words are an extension of life, so there is variance. Just as there is variance in things. We have to be careful not to attribute so much value to 'naming' (nominalism), because in doing so, we discard our understanding of how things are only recognized to by way of their 'relation' to other things. This is the core concept of 'Logos'. Naming should only be a survival tool to help us differentiate. When we apply nominalism as a scientific tool, we are disregarding essential components. (Do a search for what Charles S. Peirce said about Ockham and a ship wreck.) X is only X when you are talking about one thing, and even then you are identifying it in relation to what it is not.

Yes. What I say in my podcast about the circular character of unconscious processes and the Janus-like aspect is this.... To understand this means to understand that even in the case of a contrary, something is only recognized as a contrary in 'relation' to that which appears to be its opposite. This can be applied when considering a musical 'moment', which is typically thought of as 'standing alone' in the larger composition.This can also be applied to the importance of the silence between notes. There is no 'standing alone' or 'silence' without that which is not standing alone, or that which is actually a played note. There is always a relationship between what appears to be contraries <or distinctions>, meaning there is always 'continuity' in all things. ..... I also discuss how we only recognize 'self' in relation to that which is not self (referencing brain development). ...... Unfortunately, 600+ years of nominalism in western culture has affected our ability to understand this. Thank goodness an understanding of emergence in biology is helping us learn to recognize this. It's a shame that the materialists, dualists, and nominalists are still holding us back.

I think there is a lot to be learned from Eric Temple Bell on this matter. He had a real change in perspective in his later years. Mathematics is like any other pattern that a biological creature recognizes in its semiosphere. To understand the nature of 'continuum' and that there is definitely continuity in all of existence, not only do I look to C .S. Peirce, but I factor in Heraclitus's view ... "what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one." ... We need to remember this when we think we are so sure of our 'particular' points and patterns. .... I delve into this in episode 4 of my podcast, and I reference a Janus-like cosmic law when we consider music. .... Just some thoughts to share here.

I just posted this as a comment on a very short thread I found here about Carl Jung, and I decided to repost it here. There is definitely consciousness beyond an individual mind. ......
Now that we have a better understanding of the relationship between genetics and epigenetics, Carl Jung's ideas correlate with the relationship between archetypes and semiotics. If Jung had the insight of Charles S. Peirce, and the two had realized the connection, we would be so much further by now! But they had no knowledge of genetics and epigenetics. Consciousness is not only inside an individual brain, and this relationship explains the transition of life when the body dies. I go into a lot of detail about this in episode 4 of my podcast (A Musical Moment). Jung was ahead of his time in his understanding of archetypes and the collective unconscious. If only he had realized the semiotic connection. Biology is just now beginning to understand this amazing aspect of consciousness. It is a shame that materialists and dualist are so far behind in their understanding. Catherine Tyrrell (synechism scholar)

Now that we have a better understanding of the relationship between genetics and epigenetics, Carl Jung's ideas correlate with the relationship between archetypes and semiotics. If Jung had the insight of Charles S. Peirce, and the two had realized the connection, we would be so much further now! But they had no knowledge of genetics and epigenetics. Consciousness is not only inside an individual brain, and this relationship explains the transition of life when the body dies. I go into a lot of detail about this in episode 4 of my podcast (A Musical Moment). Jung was ahead of his time in his understanding of archetypes and the collective unconscious. If only he had realized the semiotic connection. Biology is just now beginning to understand this amazing aspect of consciousness. It is a shame that materialists and dualist are so far behind in their understanding. Catherine Tyrrell (synechism scholar)

Actually, I did just do a search and found where a few folks here were discussing the Aeon article on Peirce about four months ago. There is so much more to understand about synechism! I've actually started teaching via my website and blog, and I'm excited about 2020! The most difficult thing about understanding so much of philosophy, and bridging the gap between academia and the problems in our general culture, is explaining the extremely important understandings in a way that the general public can relate. <<< My goal! .... As Baruch Spinoza said.... “The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”

Hello!

Another serious Peirce fan here! I just joined today. I refer to myself as a 'synechism scholar'. I hope we can have some great discussions! Search for my avatar name with quotations around it to find out what I'm doing out there in cyberland. Cheers! Catherine