There is truly continuity in all things (synechism). — Mapping the Medium

This is the unsupported premise, the thing taken for granted which no one seems to be able to back up with reasonable principles.

What we have so prevalent in our world today due to those medieval misguided turns, is the slicing and dicing (nominalism) and the missing of a hugely important component (Cartesian dualism= diadic, versus what should be triadic), ultimately encouraging the idolization of the 'individual'. — Mapping the Medium

Until real continuity can be demonstrated, the only true starting point is the "individual". The reality of the individual is supported by the existence of the "medium" which separates and distinguishes individuals, making the only acceptable starting point for any logical proceeding, the law of identity. The portrayal of the medium as creating a continuity is demonstrably a false representation, as the name "medium" implies.

Are you just not paying attention? Infinitesimals do not have distinct boundaries, which is why the principle of excluded middle does not apply to them. — aletheist

All you are doing is qualifying "boundaries" with "distinct", and insisting that infinitesimals do not have "distinct boundaries". Nevertheless, infinitesimals require "boundaries", as I said, and therefore a continuity cannot be composed of infinitesimals because these boundaries necessarily break the continuity whether they are distinct or not.. Saying that the boundaries are vague and not distinct, does not say that there are no boundaries. And if there are boundaries there is no continuity.

Are you just not paying attention? Your judgment is incorrect; Peirce vehemently rejected materialism, explicitly identifying his metaphysics as objective idealism. — aletheist

Someone like Peirce, can say "I am not materialist, my metaphysics is objective idealism", and still offer us a metaphysics based in materialist principles. So I don't see how this claim is relevant.

As for forms, your comments are all over the place. For Aquinas God has infinite form, angels are form, and humans are form and matter. When a human understands something, it's form enters the intellect. That's it. There is not much else to his philosophy on this. I have no idea where you are going with your posts on here — Gregory

Do you recognize the fundamental Aristotelian principle, upheld by Aquinas, that there are two distinct types of "forms", the form of the particular (complete with accidents), and the universal form, abstracted by the human intellect? Because of this difference, it is incorrect to say that the form of a thing enters the human intellect. The form of the thing is a particular, whereas the form in the human intellect is a universal, it is an abstraction which does not contain the accidentals.

Because of this, we need to account for the process of abstraction, which is not a matter of "its form enters the intellect". This is why Aristotle introduced a division between the active (agent) intellect, and the passive intellect, a division which Aquinas upheld. The exact nature of these two, or even if the distinction is warranted, is what is at issue in the Nominalism/Realism debate.

Simply put, if the intellect receives forms, through sensation etc., or any other means, it must have a passive, receptive, aspect. This passive aspect is of the nature of potential, which is substantiated by Aristotle, as matter. This poses a somewhat vexing problem for St Thomas who wants to maintain the immateriality of the intellect. So he is inclined to posit a potentiality which is proper to the soul, but is not a material potentiality, to account for the passive intellect. The agent intellect, as pure act now, must be properly positioned as independent from the human body.

The nominalists, following an interpretation of Aristotle which was probably derived from Avicenna and Averroes, wanted an inversion of this position. They wanted the active intellect to be within the individual's soul, and the passive intellect to be external to the individual, in the realm of matter. But this appears to leave no way to validate the universal forms as they are evident, being proper to the human intellect. The nominalist must therefore demonstrate how the active intellect, within the individual human being, creates the universals, and gives them to the passive intellect in the material realm, in order to validate the existence of universals. Someone like Ockham might slice through these complexities, denying the reality of universals thereby denying the need for a passive intellect, claiming that all there is is symbols (words) in the material realm, and universals are simply words.



.

Are you saying Peirce is a subjective idealism instead of an objective idealist? — Gregory

Absolutely not. Mind is not confined to human minds.

This is the unsupported premise, the thing taken for granted which no one seems to be able to back up with reasonable principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps examining the science of color might shed some light on this.....

"The interdisciplinary field of animal coloration is growing rapidly, spanning questions about the diverse ways that animals use pigments and structures to generate color, the underlying genetics and epigenetics, the perception of color, how color information is integrated with information from other senses, and general principles underlying color’s evolution and function. People working in the field appreciate linkages between these parallel lines of enquiry, but outsiders need the easily navigable roadmap that we provide here."

"Here, a group of evolutionary biologists, behavioral ecologists, psychologists, optical physicists, visual physiologists, geneticists, and anthropologists review this diverse area of science, daunting to the outsider, and set out what we believe are the key questions for the future. These are how nanoscale structures are used to manipulate light; how dynamic changes in coloration occur on different time scales; the genetics of coloration (including key innovations and the extent of parallel changes in different lineages); alternative perceptions of color by different species (including wavelengths that we cannot see, such as ultraviolet); how color, pattern, and motion interact; and how color works together with other modalities, especially odor. From an adaptive standpoint, color can serve several functions, and the resulting patterns frequently represent a trade-off among different evolutionary drivers, some of which are nonvisual (e.g., photoprotection). These trade-offs can vary between individuals within the same population, and color can be altered strategically on different time scales to serve different purposes. Lastly, interspecific differences in coloration, sometimes even observable in the fossil record, give insights into trait evolution. The biology of color is a field that typifies modern research: curiosity-led, technology-driven, multilevel, interdisciplinary, and integrative."

"Colors in animals and plants are produced by pigments and nanostructures (2). Although knowledge of mechanisms that manipulate ultraviolet (UV) to infrared wavelengths is accumulating (3), we lack an appreciation of the developmental processes involved in cellular structure and pattern formation at optical scales (nanometers to microns). Nonetheless, the field of soft condensed matter physics (4) holds great potential for new insights into optical architectures. This will be a critical foundation for future understanding of ordered self-assembly in colored biological materials, from β-keratin in birds’ feathers (5) to chiral or uniaxial chitin structures in beetles (6). Such knowledge can illuminate the costs, constraints, and evolution of coloration."

" Perhaps the most striking case where the rules of “normal” color vision do not apply are stomatopods (mantis shrimps); these have many photoreceptor classes (up to 12) but relatively poor color discrimination ability (36) (Fig. 2)."

"Mechanisms of vision and visually guided behavior should be studied from the top down, as well as from the bottom up."

"Importantly, visual properties can be substantially affected by other sensory modalities. For instance, swallowtail butterfly responses to colors are modified by host plant odors (54)."

"Nonvisual sensory information alters how receivers respond to color signals."

"Whether and how organisms resolve trade-offs depends on the shape of the fitness curve resulting from different selective forces."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6350/eaan0221

The bottom line is that any dualistic perception is very limited. We sense much more than what is pointing outward (observed) from 'self' (subject), but we do not recognize it from a dualistic perspective. When we remove 'otherness' from the equation, perception (measurement) ceases. We need to focus more on that missing component that was disregarding from Ockham forward. Thank goodness there are several fields of study engaging in what has been overlooked for centuries. It is my hope that advances will be made in time to address some of the damage.

Saying that the boundaries are vague and not distinct, does not say that there are no boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now this is an example of splitting hairs, so I will rephrase. Infinitesimals are necessarily indefinite, while boundaries are necessarily distinct, so infinitesimals have no boundaries.

Someone like Peirce, can say "I am not materialist, my metaphysics is objective idealism", and still offer us a metaphysics based in materialist principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, so now you are claiming that Peirce was either self-deluded or a liar. Time to show your work--provide quotes demonstrating that his metaphysics was based on materialist principles, or just admit that you are not familiar with his thought and are just making stuff up.

Let me get this straight. Are the the Peirce people on this thread saying that we all have a common mind and that mind creates the material world? Averroes said we all have a common mind, but that Allah created the world, and belief in materialism doesn't rule out a common mind. It sounds too Christian to me actually, wherein guilt and punishment can be shared between people, some of whom are innocent

i see no connection between your epigenetics research and nominalism, or with Peirce. You don't elaborate

Colour is a fascinating subject. When I see an array of flowers, each having its own unique special blend of hues, on a summer day, I am awestruck by the beauty, and the fact that each particular colour is something created by that individual living being. But I don't see what this has to do with the reality of continuity. In fact, it seems more like evidence of the reality of individuality.

Now this is an example of splitting hairs, so I will rephrase. Infinitesimals are necessarily indefinite, while boundaries are necessarily distinct, so infinitesimals have no boundaries. — aletheist

Indefinite, means unlimited, which is the same as infinite. So you've just led me around in a circle. We're back to where we started. And so I'll ask you the same question again. Do you understand the difference between "infinite" and "infinitesimal? "Infinite" implies unlimited, while "infinitesimal" implies a limit.

So all you have done now is removed the distinction between "infinite" and "infinitesimal" by claiming that infinitesimals have no boundaries. You are steeped in contradiction, trying to maintain the difference between infinite and infinitesimal, while at the same time trying to remove the very thing which constitutes that difference, the boundaries which infinitesimals necessarily have.

Ah, so now you are claiming that Peirce was either self-deluded or a liar. — aletheist

"Self-deluded" might be accurate, but "deceptive" might actually be more precise, as described below.

Time to show your work--provide quotes demonstrating that his metaphysics was based on materialist principles, or just admit that you are not familiar with his thought and are just making stuff up. — aletheist

That's what I have been doing. The "infinitesimal" of Peirce is nothing other than prime matter as described by Aristotle. And your practise of contradiction as the only way to defend Peirce, along with your claim that Peirce allows for violation of the principle of contradiction, is indicative of dialectical materialism. Since dialectical materialism (as associated with Marxism) was not well respected in the United States, it makes sense for Peirce to offer another name for his metaphysics, objective idealism. Notice that both dialectical materialism, and objective idealism are derived from the Hegelian concept of "becoming"

Are the the Peirce people on this thread saying that we all have a common mind and that mind creates the material world? — Gregory

No, Peirce's view was that mind is primordial, such that "matter is a peculiar sort of mind."

then he is full of cat diarrhea. The world clearly exists as a reality, not as thought. And why has he been called an objective idealist instead of a subjective one if he thinks the world is subjective??

Indefinite, means unlimited, which is the same as infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that is not what "indefinite" means in this context.

"Infinite" implies unlimited, while "infinitesimal" implies a limit. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that is not what "infinitesimal" means in this context.

"Self-deluded" might be accurate, but "deceptive" might actually be more precise, as described below. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, calling Peirce a materialist (dialectic or otherwise) demonstrates complete unfamiliarity with his actual writings, as evidenced by the persistent refusal to offer any supporting quotes or citations whatsoever.

The world clearly exists as a reality, not as thought. — Gregory

False dichotomy. The real is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. This does not entail that the real is independent of thought in general.

And why has he been called an objective idealist instead of a subjective one if he thinks the world is subjective? — Gregory

He did not think that the world is subjective; see the definition of "real" above. Besides being an objective idealist, he was also an extreme scholastic realist.

Colour is a fascinating subject. When I see an array of flowers, each having its own unique special blend of hues, on a summer day, I am awestruck by the beauty, and the fact that each particular colour is something created by that individual living being. But I don't see what this has to do with the reality of continuity. In fact, it seems more like evidence of the reality of individuality. — Metaphysician Undercover

For you to see the color, it takes you and the flowers, plus the other sensory aspects of the medium at the time you are looking at them. The color is not confined to the flower. Your seeing it is caused by many things other than you and the flower, and without that combination of all aspects (which we are still discovering) of the medium at that moment in time, you would not see the color, or perhaps that same shade as another person would. We each see color differently because of this. It is manifested by the continuum. And other life forms would see it even more differently than humans.

so many contradictions is one post.

Even if the world is the expression of a general mind, if that mind is ours than the world is not real. If wondered a lot about Hinduism, and I've come to the conclusion that you can't truly love other people if you think they are you

Easy to say, impossible to show (apparently). You seem locked into specific conceptual dichotomies of mind/matter, thought/reality, and subjective/objective, such that you are unwilling/unable to consider a different point of view.

because it's all nonsense!

Christians try to get out of moral responsibility by saying God "became sin" and destroyed it. All you have to do is accept that he did and your responsibility is removed. Peirce's "we are one" is nothing less than a hyper intelligent person trying to escape from the crap that he's done by merging with everyone else instead of repenting and making amends sufficient to cleanse himself.

Ah, someone else who is completely unfamiliar with Peirce's writings, not to mention Christian theology. Unwilling to understand, yet eager to reject.

I've studied Christianity since I was 11 years old. So go ahead, give the quotes from Peirce on conscience and sin. Let's see if he is moral. Did he say anything at all? Go

Regarding Christian theology, I was referring to these incorrect statements.

Christians try to get out of moral responsibility by saying God "became sin" and destroyed it. All you have to do is accept that he did and your responsibility is removed. — Gregory

As for Peirce, do your own homework.

I don't even like the guy. You said he was moral but present an immoral picture of his ideas.

Christian say Jesus paid the price for our sins. So our responsibility is taken by an innocent person who was God who cleansed us against justice

I don't even like the guy. — Gregory

The world is full of people who don't like other people because they don't understand them.

Perhaps this will help, Gregory. Watch this very easy to understand video about Process Philosophy. Think of how the mind processes information, then try to adjust your perspective by a few degrees once you've seen this very short video.

One thing that makes Peirce, Whitehead, Spinoza, and a few others so difficult for Protestant Christians (I highly suspect you are a Protestant) to understand is that your faith teaches you that you are an immanent creation of God's, and God is transcendent and 'out there', 'up there', 'man in the sky', etc. (separate realms, if you will), whereas to understand Peirce means to understand that reality... 'Mind'.. is immanent AND transcendent. Whether you want to call that mind 'God' is left up to the interpreter.

You have been taught that Jesus was God incarnate (as immanent man), always idolizing the dualistic nature of God being separate from His creation (this is exactly what the title of this post is about, the theological origins of nominalism and dualism). Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'. I do hope you fully understand 'Logos'. If so, you should be able to grasp Peirce once you study him more deeply. If not, I recommend you learn more about Heraclitus. Let me know if you would like some links.

Here's the video. I hope it helps you understand. .......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8&list=PL5r3bNEcthJDR9HwurZbu9dTrFbPpzVrp&index=14&t=0s

I've told you before I am a materialist. I was raised Latin Catholic though. I am not interested in philosophies that try to take responsibility away from humans. Every homo sapein I've met is human. Not a tautology, you get what I mean. We all have a basic morality. All this means is that we are faced with situations where our conscience plays a role. Go against the conscience and you F up. So you have to make up for it and revert the will back to where it was. Where does conscience play a role in Peirce's philosophy?

... to understand Peirce means to understand that reality... 'Mind'.. is immanent AND transcendent. Whether you want to call that mind 'God' is left up to the interpreter. — Mapping the Medium

According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God.

I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. — Peirce, R 843, 1908

In case there is any doubt about what he was denying here, it turns out that he wrote the definition of "immanent" for the Century Dictionary, which includes the following.

In modem philosophy the word is applied to the operations of a creator conceived as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a creator himself, as opposed to a transient or transcendent creating and creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God. — Peirce, Century Dictionary

If God is not immanent, then by this definition He is necessarily transcendent; both pantheism (the world is God) and panentheism (the world is in God) are ruled out. It is therefore untenable to ascribe either of these views to Peirce, as some scholars wrongly do; he was a Protestant Christian theist, although admittedly not a traditionally orthodox one.

Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'. — Mapping the Medium

Citation, please. The first verses of the Gospel of John explicitly identify the Logos (Word) with only one Person of the Trinity, the Son who became flesh and dwelt among us. The best treatment of the Trinity from a Peircean standpoint that I have come across so far is Andrew Robinson's 2010 book, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Semiotics of C. S. Peirce.

I searched "conscience charles peirce" on google, and nothing came up

According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God.
I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever.
— Peirce, R 843, 1908 — aletheist

Yes. I realize that. I was only trying to relate it to something Gregory might understand. .. Peirce said that he and Spinoza had much in common

searched "conscience charles peirce" on google, and nothing came up — Gregory

You might consider reading Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'. Peirce and Bakhtin had much in common. And there are references to proper ways of treating others all throughout Peirce's writings, usually in reference to 'Being'.

Do you believe it's possible for people to sin and consequently be punished for it?

Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'.
— Mapping the Medium
Citation, please. The first verses of the Gospel of John explicitly identify the Logos (Word) with only one Person of the Trinity, the Son who became flesh and dwelt among us. The best treatment of the Trinity from a Peircean standpoint that I have come across so far is Andrew Robinson's 2010 book, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Semiotics of C. S. Peirce. — aletheist

I will get back to you with the citation. Again, I was trying to relate this to something Gregory might understand. I have good citations. Part of Peirce's trying to understand this was his 'unconventional' perspective as a member of the Episcopal Church.

I searched "conscience charles peirce" on google, and nothing came up — Gregory

Try downloading the combined PDF of the eight-volume Collected Papers and searching for "conscience" there.