Well, Australasia. I've had good mates from both Ashburton and Warrnambool. You wouldn't know the difference.Local to where, though? — Janus
That like anything else drugs open up different possibilities for experience. — Janus
There certainly seems to be a lot of Peirce in Whitehead (judging from what I have read of Peirce, which has not been a real lot, but just slowly, over the past fifteen or so years, working through two volumes of his selected papers), but he also goes well beyond Peirce in important ways, I think. — Janus
Well, Australasia. I've had good mates from both Ashburton and Warrnambool. You wouldn't know the difference. — apokrisis
Does that seem enough of an answer to you?
You are claiming a heightened and truer state of experience from what the neuroscience would say must be a faulty misfiring of the brain. Not sure how you resolve that contradiction, until you tell me. — apokrisis
Oh please. If you can make any sense of Whitehead and how he goes "well beyond", here is your perfect chance to lay that wisdom out. — apokrisis
I am claiming a heightened state of experience, not a "truer one". An ecstatic experience is not necessarily "truer" than a banal one. So, the contradiction is, again, a projection of your own. — Janus
Well, Whitehead developed a whole complex metaphysical system which is certainly not Peircean through and through, although there are commonalities. It takes a long time to make sense of Whitehead, which I am beginning to do. I suppose the same can be said for Peirce. I've made less progress on that front. — Janus
Right. So you have made your judgement. But you can't give the grounds for it.
I guess it's just a gut feeling. So at least you are being self-consistent then. — apokrisis
Are you denying that Whitehead has produced a complex, comprehensive and systematic metaphysics that owes something, but by no means everything, to Peirce? — Janus
Lowe writes "Whitehead knew Peirce's logic of relatives when he wrote Universal Algebra, but there is no evidence of substantial knowledge at any time of anything else that Peirce published."
Although it has been common for readers of Peirce's metaphysical writings to notice a considerable similarity to some features of Whitehead's philosophy, a study in depth of each one shows wide differences between them.
According to Lowe, "the more likely picture is of paths which, though touching at certain important points, were for the most part so separate that whoever thinks to make further explorations must choose the one and reject the other, and as he looks back at Peirce and Whitehead, he must then be ready to reconsider the significance of those similarities"
http://www.unav.es/users/PeirceWhitehead.html
...but whether you like his system or not, I don't think it can be denied that Whitehead's ideas go well beyond Perice's in the scope of development. — Janus
Are we talking about processes or actual entities, transcendence or immanence, material things or mental things, creativity or constraints? — apokrisis
Tychism=creative advance indeterminism meaning a genuinely open future). — Janus
Firstness= universal and primordial feeling or "everythingness" (in your terms) — Janus
pan-semioticism (although I'm not sure Peirce himself advocated that) = pan-experientialism — Janus
He doesn't "absorb" oppositions or contrasts and explicitly rejects any kind of Hegelian synthesis or sublation where they are resolved through absorption rather than upheld as contrasting relations And what do you say? — Janus
The very existence of being is the "answer" but it is not like being was there and created beings. Rather being is an awareness of the facticity, the emerging and enduring in the eternal sense of all contingent beings. — Justin Truth
The real question is why there is the existence of anything at all. — Justin Truth
It might be good to learn about Whitehead through Rorty. — schopenhauer1
I didn't say he resolves them. — apokrisis
You are home again. — apokrisis
It's true that the human cannot find a home in your "mathematical strength umwelt" which means that it is not really an "umwelt" at all, but an ivory tower construction. — Janus
In all the time I have participated on this forum and the old one, I have never seen you show any interest in any philosopher other than Peirce (with the exception of perhaps Kant, Hegel, Aristotle and Anaximander insofar as you believe they agreed with or anticipated Peirce) or any approach other than semiotics. — Janus
It seems you think Peirce was the greatest philosopher who ever lived and that no thinker who comes after him said anything worthwhile unless it was something that had already been said, or implied, by Peirce. — Janus
I don't read philosophy in order to discover the One True System. I read it to diversify my ideas and familiarize myself with creative new approaches. — Janus
It seems to me that you suffer from an anxiety, a horror even, that you might entertain any idea which does not correspond to Reality as it is portrayed by science, Good luck with that; I don't share such anxiety or proscription. — Janus
Don't you feel embarrassed by this level of insult? It is pretty clear which one of us is being thrust into a state of high anxiety by being confronted by their "other".
Again, do you think I should be apologetic for pursuing naturalism as a metaphysical project, going wherever it seems to lead? Am I being such a bad boy? Why are you shaking such a worried and angry finger now?
(Although I can appreciate that you view me as an alarming intrusion on your own chosen familiar umwelt. Your taste for intellectual diversity has its limits, after all.) — apokrisis
If you listen closely, you would also see how much I say Peirce left rather muddled. If you want hero figures, I would point to Howard Pattee and Stan Salthe as two contemporaries who have added a hell of a lot of polish to anything Peirce was in a position to say. — apokrisis
I honestly think your thinking is mired in reductionism in the sense that you think everything can be explained by science, and that any thinking which is not scientific is therefore pretty much worthless. — Janus
So, I don't believe that you have demonstrated that your ideas are cogent when it comes to the 'humanities' aspects of human life. — Janus
So you "honestly" think that. Thus you call me a liar when I explain otherwise. — apokrisis
But, you agreed earlier that your thinking is reductionist in this, but not in the 'mechanistic', sense. — Janus
And I have never heard you say you found anything of interest or value in, for example, Deleuze, Heidegger, or Whitehead, or in fact any 'unscientifc' thinker, for that matter. You always seem to be dismissive of such philosophers. — Janus
The value in what you say does not exclude the value in very different kinds of discourses, though. It's not a matter of it being a contest between competing attempts to produce a theory of everything. — Janus
I don't agree with Peirce's formulation of truth as being what the community of enquirers would at the end come to agree on; for me, this seems to be a very scientistic notion of truth. — Janus
Anyway I would apologize if you felt insulted, but I know there is no need, because you, like me, do not take anything said on here personally, or at least so you have avowed on several occasions if my memory serves. — Janus
A very nice talk, but I'm puzzled by what you would see as its take home message. — apokrisis
This is why Platonism, Logicism and Computationalism seem to have something to them. They are only mathematical umwelts - the worlds disclosed in a language game. Yet they are a clear step up from the sociocultural boundedness, the subjectivity, of a poetical umwelt. — apokrisis
And metaphysics is about mathematical-strength umwelts. Peirce was playing that game. Whitehead did and then dropped out. — apokrisis
From this point of view - an umwelt contructed by a poetical use of language - you can actually wall yourself off from all that nasty mathematical metaphysics. That becomes scientistic baggage to be left at the door of belief. Welcome to the cosy world of pan-experientialism. Take off your work boots. You are home again. — apokrisis
Yeah. To the degree they are meant to be saying something interesting about the metaphysics of nature, I find them not wildly exciting. They are peripheral figures, rather late in the day, at best. And Whitehead not even that. — apokrisis
And it is more than just "very scientistic". Peirce wastrying to define science as an inquiry into truth - forever rooted in phenomenology and pragmatism. — apokrisis
If you could show me Whitehead said something I simply couldn't afford not to understand, that would be terrific. So ball in your court. — apokrisis
At least you admit it is a language game. — schopenhauer1
How is this not a bias for mathematical totalizing? — schopenhauer1
Also, Whitehead's philosophy was very structured and internally coherent. — schopenhauer1
You do have holes in your theory. You have newborns with no experiential qualities. You have animals with no experiential qualities. — schopenhauer1
Despite your arrogance, condescension, and general uncharitableness, — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.