This is a favorite video on my educational playlist ('My Freedom from Nominalism Worldview'). ... Rocco Gangle does an EXCELLENT job of explaining Spinoza, language, and relational identity. ... https://youtu.be/osySxRALhSo

We recognize subject only in relation to object. A world of verbs and adjectives, so to speak. This is why we have no memories of early development. Our sense of self 'became' due to the action of verbs and the recognition via adjectives. Nominalism reduced our adult approach to the world down to dismissing the importance of the verb and adjective. Even your question has a 'slash' (slice) between subject and object.

I enjoy life due to actions and recognitions.

I voted climate change, but would have voted 'nominalism' if it was on the list. I believe it to be the root cause of most of those problems.

Yes, although before going any farther we need to establish what we mean in this context by "consciousness" and "real." — aletheist

Agreed.

I am not sure what that would even mean, but like anything else, I think that it can be explained/described mathematically--i.e., with a retroductive hypothesis that we can then deductively explicate and inductively evaluate. The subject matter of mathematics is much broader than just numbers. — aletheist

Agreed.

Again, we need to define "consciousness," and numbers are strictly hypothetical. Semiotics is a relatively recent science, so it clearly came last; but if you meant to say semeiosis, the real process that semiotics studies, then I am inclined to believe that it came first. — aletheist

Agreed.
I deliberately mixed up the terms 'semiotics' and 'semiosis' in order to point to the points you already made. It is a sad shame that 'semeiosis' was recognized centuries ago, but dismissed of its importance in the triad of human understanding until recently.

My current working hypothesis is that time is a manifestation of semeiosis, the ongoing evolution of the universe as dynamical objects determine sign tokens to determine dynamical interpretants. Linguistics is a special science that studies actual languages, while semiotics is a normative science that studies the nature of signs in general (speculative grammar), good vs. bad reasoning (logical critic), and methods for obtaining true beliefs (speculative rhetoric). — aletheist

Agreed.
'Semiotic causality' is receiving a LOT of attention in several fields of study. One of the reasons I am so fond of Mikhail Bakhtin is because he was a semiotician who also worked in linguistic studies. In the field of literary criticism, he always applied 'otherness' to the examination of semiotic causality in written works. I also found GEMS of thought in his 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'.

I doubt that anyone can deny that humans, and some animals, have a self-image. As demonstrated by Descartes, my reasoning Self is the only thing I know for sure. But, is it a will'o'wisp of fleeting imagination, or something more durable that can survive death? Is the Soul a gift of God, or of Evolution? Is it a spark of divinity, or merely a tool for genetic survival? These are some of the Essential questions that I was looking for insight on. — Gnomon

Science has found through studies of brain development that the prenatal brain develops as a combination of decoding genetic and epigenetic information plus the cognitive mapping of the current environment. Some things old, some things new. Synapses in the brain, although connected, are not actually attached. There is a gap between each one, where information is exchanged via chemical and electrical 'signals' (people are not attached, but they exchange information via signals). Cognitive mapping continues after birth and for the rest of life. Once the child reaches about six years old, and the head growth slows, the brain connections least useful to the child in its daily environment are pruned back. The child's brain has developed to be best suited for the environment, under whatever circumstances those may be. And, the child's sense of 'self' is developed via recognizing and differentiating that which is 'not' self. Example: "My eyes are blue because they are not like my father's, which someone told me are brown."

If our 'self', through brain development, is a combination of 'some things old, some things new', mentally and physically, and consciousness is not a material aspect of that, it seems logical that the immaterial portion of the contributions (that which is 'experienced' through interaction with otherness) would revert to being immaterial when the 'material' is sloughed off.

Speaking of mathematicians/physicists named Bell, I recognize another oddity in the way that John Stewart Bell's (Bell's Theorem) is interpreted by nominalists.

"Some regard him as having demonstrated the failure of local realism (local hidden variables). Bell's own interpretation is that locality itself met its demise."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

Just another example of the merry-go-round going round and round between realists and nominalists, when they are both misguided. They will always glean what they can to fit into their perspective. There is no end in sight. Clearly, it is related to perspective (observer effect?, if you want to call it that), and how in reality we only recognize anything in relation to what it is not. When we look directly at it without the 'medium' of influences in order to differentiate it, it collapses. There is truly continuity in all things (synechism). Such is the insufficient nature of individual material or cognitive mapping of any sort. It is severely limited representation without the full spectrum of perspective. Gregory Bateson was known for his insistence that we should never go down any path of a singular line of thinking. Charles Peirce understood the importance of a 'community of inquirers'. 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'. What will the future of humankind be if we do not recognize and teach the importance of dialoguing with different perspectives and the adhesion of community? <--- Rhetorical question.

Many people decipher Charles Peirce's agapasm to be an evangelical, religious, or devoutly spiritual perspective. They automatically associate it with the Christian concept of 'Agape' (originally Greek), sometimes implying that Peirce started with that concept, trying to 'fit' his logic, philosophy, and science into that box.

I understand it to be a purely logical conclusion, when factoring in semiosis, how biology strives 'toward', and recognizing that there is continuity in all things. The purest forms of creative love are revealed in the Unity of Opposites (Heraclitus). Think of the union of a man and a woman, resolutions of conflict, etc.. These things exist for a reason, and are a glimpse for us of the grand story.

On this page of Eric Temple Bell's book, he explains that a map (he's referring to mathematics here) is isomorphic, and not the real thing, as are the geometric relations of connections and betweeness.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3527577

He goes on in the pages that follow about the cosmos, unified theory, Pythagoras, abstracting, idealizing reality, etc., and even discusses doubt and belief. Peircean?

What he then goes on to say about the second law of thermodynamics brings me back to the 'From Being to Becoming' of another of my favorite thinkers, Ilya Prigogine.

He also mentions Augustine.

Lots of help to be found for me here,
.. I think?

I'm going to do some digging into these pages of Eric Temple Bell's book 'Nemurology'. I won't be back here for a while, but feel free to look through them too.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=map;id=uc1.b3527577;view=1up;seq=13;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

Chill, my dear. :wink:

There really is a reason to my rhyme. Time is a juggling act for me, hence my putting some questions out for 'contemplation', not necessarily expecting answers. Putting together thought puzzles is what I do in my writing. I'm really not trying to be difficult. Perhaps this will help....

A very genuine quest....

I need (want) to explain the differences between what mathematician Eric Temple Bell meant when he stated "the map is not the thing mapped", and when Alfred Korzybski (mis)-used Bell's epigram in his own book 'Science and Sanity' when he said "the map is not the territory". Eric Temple Bell's worldview was more realist, and Alfred Korzybski's worldview was more nominalist. Some people here would say that I am splitting hairs, but I seek clues to Scotus' and Peirce's thought dilemmas. The way that the questions above are interpreted might shine some light on some of the differences I am seeking. We DO find answers in differences. I have no doubt of that.

Once I can process understanding this, I can then re-word it in a way that the average person can understand.

In the meantime....

I'll throw these questions out for contemplation...

1) Do you think that consciousness is 'real'?

2) If so, do you think it can be explained/described numerically?

3) If not, how is consciousness manifested and used if it is not 'real'?

4) Considering the above questions, which came first, consciousness, numbers, or semiotics?

5) How do all of the above questions factor into time, evolution, and ever-changing linguistics?

Metaphysician Undercover and Aletheist...

Thank you. These are exactly the topics I came here to dig deeper into. I appreciate it very much.

I will respond again with my thoughts later during some freer time. I look forward to you both providing some feedback to help me clarify my thinking.

Again, Peter Adamson of King's College London does an excellent job explaining this in the video on Duns Scotus that I referenced earlier.

Scotus also conducted his work in Aristotelian fashion. But his 'Univocity of Being' carried a realism aspect.

I look at Peirce's work throughout his years and in the context of the time and mindset.

I never said he followed Scotus precisely, but Scotus motivated him.

When taken in context to what he was up against, yes he referred to it as extreme, no doubt.

I will say that in my studies I have come across nominalists who try to align themselves with aspects of Peirce. Just look at what William James did with pragmatism. Peirce had to rename his 'pragmaticism' to differentiate it so as not to be stolen.

Peirce's view is described as "nuanced realism". It is realism of a different stripe, for sure.

Agreed

Scotus.....

- Agrees with Abelard that Unity is transcendental.

- Denies whatever is 'one' is an individual.

- Asserts that there is a kind of Unity that is 'less than numerical'.

- Asserts that 'common natures' have a 'degree' of reality (or being), BUT he strenuously denies that universals exist. Universality is a feature of our mental life (due to abstraction).

- Walks a line of thinking that falls between Plato and Aristotle.

- Against nominalists' claims that common natures are real.

- Against realists' claims that common natures are not universal.

- Accounts for causation in this 'degree of less than numerical'. (Experience and events provide this 'degree' of influential causation. Think about what science is now discovering about epigenetic/environmental/experiential influences.)

- Agrees with some of the Islamic polymath, Avicenna, views on common natures.

- Disagrees with Aquinas' views on common natures/species.

What constitutes an individual's essence is its 'difference' from another. We cannot grasp the lesser degree of common nature ( I would add consciousness here as well) because of our dependence on embodied physical sensation. (Again, think about epigenetics. We cannot know what influences our experiences and environment are currently having on what we will pass to our offspring because we are limited in space, time, and embodiment. We can only study what has happened in the past and the change between then and now.). Singular essences are unknowable to us, even though they ARE real. We refer to their reality indirectly by recognizing and differentiating what it is not. Example: Humans develop and recognize 'self' only in relation to that which is 'not' self.

The nominalists gleaned from Scotus what would fit their stance, and the realists gleaned from Scotus what would fit their stance. They have also done this with Peirce's work. The nominalists and realists were and are both misguided.

Moving forward from Scotus into the future of this misunderstanding.....

Ockham took the nominalist vein and ran with it, later influencing Martin Luther and Rene Descartes. Eventually becoming the protestant evangelical and scientism thinking we have today. They both still battle the realist perspective. But again, the nominalists and the realists are still both misguided. So we have all of these 'camps' of thought going round and round on this merry-go-round, and never getting off.

Physician Henry Stubbe (1632-1676) was considered to be the most noted Latin and Greek scholar of his age, as well as a great mathematician and historian. He was the first person to use the term 'semiotics'. Stubbe studied all of this in great depth, and actually tried to get the Christian community to acquire a better understanding of Islam because he too saw where the thinking split. Not that he was a proponent of Islam. He just understood what happened and was frustrated at the ignorance. Stubbe also understood that nominalism and realism were both misguided. The nominalist drive was just too popular, due to the promotion of ontological individualism. Everyone wanted respect for their own, personal, cognitive maps (their fixations of beliefs).

Even when John Locke wrote 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' (the second time the word 'semiotics' was used), he was leaning to the nominalist view. He broke human understanding into three categories; Physics, Pragmatism, and Semiotics. However, 'semiotics' was kind of an afterthought of the time, and never held in high enough importance due to the popularity of nominalism and the new science frenzy choosing not to include it as a relative feature.

So, here we are today, dealing with a western culture steeped in ontological individualism, evangelical Christianity, scientism, etc., (Ilya Prigogine referred to the western schizophrenia) thinking that if they just keep insisting that the Muslims have a skewed perspective that one day the 'barbarians' will wake up. Well, I've got news for everyone. We all need to wake up!

The only way to make any difference in what has happened is to try and teach the general public how human beings actually develop and how life interacts with each other. If we only recognize ourselves and our 'medium' by what it is not, then we have to realize that the only way to learn and reach a shared understanding is through dialogue with others who have a different perspective.

THIS is my reason for being here, and what motivates me to do what I do.

I do have my answer for you. I haven't forgotten. Running late for my work day, but I will get it to you within a couple of hours.

Reading Peirce is difficult. Here is an audio version of 'The Fixation of Belief". It might be easier to digest, and you can listen to it while you are doing other things.

https://youtu.be/gJAGMWZ3YQU

Thank you.

Yes, it's been a learning curve, trying to develop audio properly, and find the sweet spot of the best way to reach the most general audience. There in lies where most of our cultural problems exist. There is a chasm between academia and the general public population of evangelicals and followers of scientism.

The intro music was only started as a recognition sound, and it will be condensed to only a few notes this Spring. The next two episodes will be 'A Bird's Eye View' (explaining how what we think of as 'universal' is limited to human perspective, and introducing the concept of 'semiosphere') and 'The Inside Out of Color'.

I've got much better sound equipment now. Thank goodness!

So sorry, I didn't answer your direct question. I'm juggling stuff here.

It is ontological because at its root it is based on an understanding of 'being' and how that relates to free will and individual rights.

I highly recommend reading C.S Peirce's 'The Fixation of Belief'. True, it's not just limited to the US, but it was at a peak frenzy at the time the US was founded. It is the mindset that the US was conceived in and steeped in.

If we were able to rationally go back to the time of Scotus and examine the differences between what became ontological individualism and Islamic thought, perhaps there could be fodder for potential discussions between the two. Wishful thinking, I know.

Thank you. ..... I am not able to respond right now due to obligations pulling me away, but I will. :)

BY the way, Scotus explains free will. Perhaps that will get some attention.

Scotus was brilliant. VERY in depth, and difficult to follow, but his insights were wonderful! He was probably overlooked and difficult to understand because of his depth. Scotus's work holds the key to avoiding some of the slippery slope of Thomism, and clarifies Peirce's thought. Once you fully understand Scotus, it highlights why Thomism is a misguided turn. The difference between these two holds the key. I referenced an excellent, thorough, and in depth video earlier in this thread. Here is the link if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9JVgL5Jx18

Where do you see the differences in Scotus's view?

I want to logically discuss the differences between Thomism and Scotus. I decided I should give this forum one last opportunity to seriously discuss philosophy with me at this depth. It is an important topic to me. I can't do anything about the fact that it is not important to you, or that you have no interest or background in the studies of it. My time is valuable to me.

Thank you

So, we want the 'scientific method', which if you know anything about Peirce, we owe much of that to him, and we want the 'pragmatism', which his was distorted to appease the popular nominalist view, but we want to throw out his exceptional logic in how he came to his conclusions? Peirce was one of the most skilled logicians ever to grace history.

Again, I am not a Thomist. but I am hoping to find a philosopher here who has studied Thomism and Duns Scotus, and who is willing to delve into the differences with me.

I want to clarify that although I highly admire Brian Kemple, I am not a 'Thomist'. I lean toward Duns Scotus. My main reason for joining this forum is hoping to find others who will discuss the differences between the two thoughts. Please let me know if anyone here has studied these in depth and would like to discuss them with me. Thank you

The Continuity of Being: C.S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Synechism

https://epochemagazine.org/the-continuity-of-being-c-s-peirces-philosophy-of-synechism-9fa5c341247e

"Epigenetic Inheritance in Nematodes
The memory of a temperature spike can persist for as many as 14 generations in C. elegans.". .... https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/epigenetic-inheritance-in-nematodes-31228

P-E-I-R-C-E

Pronounced 'purse'.

I am back now. My lack of dialogue is only because I have a very busy life.

Thank you for your insight. I am always open to dialogue and learning from others. It is my mantra, and the reason I joined this forum. It is unfortunate that I feel so unwelcome here, and clearly very misunderstood.

Do I want to celebrate the strides that the biological sciences have made? Absolutely! Which is why I wanted to share them here. I was hoping there were others here who also stay informed of these things and could share information with me. I am always wanting to learn about new discoveries and converse with others who are just as excited to learn as I am. I do not disagree with the strides that science has made due materialism and dualism. On the contrary. We have made tremendous scientific progress. However, I see life as triadic, not diadic. And I feel we are missing a huge component. The triadic nature is the momentum of continuity.

I have been kind and polite. I don't feel that has been reciprocated. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but it's very clear that I'm not welcome here. I do not have the luxury of staying online all day. I work hard at all that I do. If I don't give the lengthy answer that is insisted I give in the time frame of the demander, I am chastised for it.

I am very aware that I need others to learn. I do not have all of the answers. Otherness is the key to understanding. I will look elsewhere for otherness. I wish everyone here only the very best. Happy New Decade. Catherine

It's not psuedo-science. It is mainstream, excepted science. Perhaps someday you'll be ready to accept it.

Please refer to the other thread where this is being discussed. It is science, not theory or mysticism.

Speaking of the Islamic world, my pet project now is delving into Henry Stubbe. I recently purchased an amazing written work if his! He is the first to have used the term and highlight the importance of semiotics.

It requires going back to Scholasticism and delving into understanding Duns Scotus in detail. I am on my phone now, but you are welcome to watch an EXCELLENT video on YouTube titled 'Duns Scotus on Being, Universals, and Individuation'. I hope to be back in here in about 10 hours or so. Busy day!

I'm happy to get into the details. I just don't have time right now.