I suspect that a major difference between our worldviews is our jargon. My Enformationism thesis is primarily derived from Physics, and is only secondarily related to Metaphysics. — Gnomon

Okay :smile: I'll switch my language to Physics. I'll write more in the morning when I have some time and quiet.

Semantics?? — Gnomon

I get a bit on edge when it comes to Semantics, mainly because it is not the same as Semiotics, and because there is Saussurean semiotics and Peircean semiotics. There are major differences. ... I mentioned Alfred Korzybski previously. He launched General Semantics in 1933 with his book Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. I have had some strenuous forum discussions in the past about what I see as nominalism in General Semantics. This was before I became a little more skilled at stating my case. General Semantics focuses on abstraction, which, as I've mentioned previously in this thread, should not be 'parsed out'.

The Difference Between Semantics and Semiotics

Anyway, let's change our language for now and focus on Physics. After all, Peirce was a scientist, and he had plenty to say about Physics. :grin:

@Gnomon
I took these excerpts you wrote in another thread because I'd like to touch on our commonalities and differences.
Quoting you...
"In my Enformationism thesis, that "underlying something" is mundane Information." ..... "For humans, Information is Knowledge & Awareness. For me, it's a monism that unites the dualism of Mind & Matter."

Like you, I also refer to myself as a 'dual-aspect monist', but not specifically because it unites mind and matter, although I do see mind and matter as two expressions of the same continuity. The dual-aspect in my monist perspective is because I have always agreed with what I read in number 4 of Peirce's set of related ideas regarding synechism...
(4) the view that to exist in some respect is also to not exist in that respect (CP 7.569);

As I mentioned before when I referred to Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites, a child develops a personal identity of self only in relation to that which is not self. Recognizing short or tall, blonde or brunette, skin color, personality traits, and even where one lives on a map, all of these differentiations contribute to individuation. You may call this 'mundane' information, but from my perspective, there is nothing mundane about it.

I suppose your 'information' could be seen from a different perspective on Charles Peirce's 'triadic semiotics'. In my episode 3, I used sounds to illustrate how we can each interpret meanings differently, depending on the context in which they are used, and depending on the listener's previously ingrained cognitive building blocks of inference.

Here is an excerpt from episode 3......

"What all of these types of signs have in common is that they are all relative to a person’s experience, and how those building blocks of inference have shaped the cognitive mapping in an individual’s mind as an ‘extension’ of the person’s culture. To reference Gregory Bateson again, you may think you’re thinking your own thoughts, but you’re not. You’re thinking your culture’s thoughts. Biology and the understanding of emergence, process, and relational dynamics is quite clear on the matter of ‘thought and extension’. There is no detached individual, and it is through our observance of ‘otherness’ that we develop a sense of ‘self’ in relation to that which is ‘not self’. Sign observance is inference processing of the otherness that is the medium we are navigating, and it is how we orient what we know of ‘self’, and recognize that among others we too are alive. It is the mechanism by which everything is born, interacts, grows, and dies. In essence it is biological dialogue… that begins simply and develops into more complex systems. In human beings it has reached the level of complexity that has become language. This being the reason dialogue is so crucial to a healthy society. … And by written word, one human being can express and communicate to another human being the types of signs that are icon, index, and symbol into a quick to communicate package consisting of only a few letters. The power in that can have much more impact than we often realize, and can be either nurturing or destructive. … So it was that, in the beginning, there really was the Word, as in ‘sign’, and creation cannot exist without semiosis. It is an innate aspect of our being. Charles Peirce held that “The entire universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs.” Semiotic causality is what we cognitively experience as the flowing, universal momentum of cause and effect determinism. And as Mikhail Bakhtin said, “The better a person understands his determinism (his thingness), the closer he is to understanding and realizing his true freedom.” … When we realize that what we ‘think’ is our individual mind when we hear, read, or encounter something with our senses, is actually inferences we make based on cognitive, semiotic cause and effect scaffolding within our own mind (and that of other minds that by way of extension we have incorporated into our own), we can better understand how our expressions and reactions are then received by others, ultimately creating a more responsible culture."

End Quote from episode 3.

You see, for me, matter is the fossil record of life's activity within this medium in which all life forms engage and interact. The signs that we interpret and create are expressions of the flowing biological dialogue throughout our universes of experience. I have noticed in philosophy how the term 'universe' mostly refers to man's universe of experience. Understanding how triadic semiotics really works opens us up to better understanding the universes of experience of all life forms. Charles Peirce devoted many years to developing extensive definitions of the signs, and to explaining how triadic sign systems work.

At the end of episode 3, I asked the listeners to listen to a sound that referred to a previous episode, and to try to separate the sound from the inference of its meaning as it was in the previous episode, making it purely sound with no meaning at all. It's a very difficult exercise. I then suggested that they practice doing this a few times each day with something they see, read, or hear. Engaging in this exercise definitely opens the world up to being bigger, more colorful, and much more dynamic. Not mundane at all. These information vessels (signs) are everywhere.

I think our culture would be much more responsible if these aspects of human understanding had not been neglected in favor of nominalism, dualism, and materialism.

And on another note of interest regarding my reference above to 'thought and extension', ... In the last decade of his life, Peirce repeatedly praised Spinoza, saying that they were akin in their works and understanding. Spinoza was also a dual-aspect monist. And along with Peirce and a few others, he also holds very high ranking among my favorite thinkers. :smile:

Ironically, I assume that Nominalists take the fourth method as their guide. But they interpret the intent to mean : reject Ideality. Ideas about reality fall into the Aristotelian category of Metaphysics. So, if they can't see, hear, touch or smell it, it ain't admissible as evidence for the "fixation of belief". — Gnomon

This does point to where nominalists make a real error in reasoning. They don't realize that they are 'jumping' ahead, bypassing the continuity in reasoning that emerges up from instinct to induction, to abstraction, and then to deduction and a fully, well thought out, rational belief. This is what I meant when I said previously that 'abstraction' should not be 'parsed out'. That's just not how our biology works.

Inductive reasoning is where evidence of 'habit' lies, but is not fully conscious (an example of Thirdness, as a Law). We can see this in how we respond when driving a car. We are not fully conscious of every action. Induction is the bridge between instinct and abstraction. The momentum of continuity moves us back and forth between instinct and abstraction by way of inductive reasoning. We may be driving along, casually using inductive reasoning, and then suddenly abstract something in our environment, and depending on the amount of time we have and the severity of the information we abstract, we may either take the time to apply deductive reasoning, or we may just react via our 'less than fully conscious' inductive 'habit', perhaps swerving to miss something in the road.

This reverting back to inductive 'habit' might save us from something in the road if we are driving, but when our existential beliefs feel threatened, the negative effect could be that it prevents us from engaging in the better method of taking the time to apply deductive reasoning. And when an entire community of inquirers engages in this better method, actually challenging those habitual beliefs, errors can be averted, and the entire community can move forward with a better understanding of each other and the world in which they live.

Thirdness/law, and the example of 'habit', explains that there are 'tendencies' in Being. This is an innate feature of the continuity that is inherent in all of existence.

As in what I posted about synechism...
(7) "the doctrine . . . that elements of Thirdness cannot entirely be escaped" (CP7.653)

Thirdness, whether as in the tendency to take 'habits', or as in other manifestations of natural laws, is very real, even if you can't see, hear, touch, or smell it. This 'habit' as tendency is a feature of formal cause, both physically and cognitively.

This ties in with my last post about logic and 'The Fixation of Belief'.

A perfect example of ignorance is how someone could possibly think I have something against 'individual rights'. Yep, some people get nasty when they don't take the time to learn. This is what happens when one of the three crucial aspects of human understanding is dropped from our culture. If that discarded aspect (that even John Locke had referred to) had been kept and properly taught and incorporated into Western Civilization's culture, so many of the challenges we are dealing with today would not have come about. <sigh> So sad.

Our culture should teach ALL children how to apply critical thinking, logic, an understanding of triadic semiotics, and proper dialogue beginning in elementary school.

But I do disagree with Locke's voluntarism, and his last nominalist words in his essay below: "wholly separate and distinct one from another". They are not, and it is why we are in the shape we are in today. :sad:

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

This also reminds me of Gregory Bateson's comments at 3:02 in this video about 'Ecology of Mind'.

But without such beliefs, how could humans make sense of the world? :smile: — Gnomon

My other reference to this was just highlighting specifics of 'belief'. This is where the full text can be most easily accessed. It was the very first of his papers that I ever read. Written in the style of the brilliant logician that he was, it captured my attention, and made me want to read even more. ....The Fixation of Belief

Pointing to what I posted previously about Peirce's three categories (irreducible modes of being), in paragraph 3 you will find this statement.... "The particular habit of mind which governs this or that inference may be formulated in a proposition whose truth depends on the validity of the inferences which the habit determines; and such a formula is called a guiding principle of inference." ..... Note how this is what Peirce would assign to Thirdness (since 'habit' is assigned to 'Law').

But that rebellion never succeeded in completely overthrowing the role of Faith in the popular mind. — Gnomon

I think it actually encouraged them to dig in their heels! In the Humanists' desire to hurriedly free their 'Will" from Church bondage, they unknowingly created a much more complicated dilemma.

The theory of Evolution is merely an Idea, but is has some physical evidence to support its generalization from specific fossils to an elaborate "myth" of Life's struggle to survive. — Gnomon

Are you speaking only of Darwin? Or are you including Lamarck?

But without such beliefs, how could humans make sense of the world? :smile: — Gnomon

Have you read Charles Peirce's The Fixation of Belief?

A distinction needs to be made between reflexive, inherited religious belief and an understanding of the symbolic meaning of religious symbols and ideas. — Wayfarer

I completely agree with you. However, my goal is to write and teach in a manner that is as easy as possible to understand by the broadest possible audience that, more often than not, has a limited education. Just as in what happened when I joined this forum, readers/listeners latch onto the concepts, words, and references they are most familiar with, and then attach their 'already ingrained cognitive map' meanings to them, often overlooking the actual intended meaning. I have to be very careful in my writing if I am to get my intended message across. These kinds of topics are aggressively scrutinized by people who are just itching to label me a 'holy roller' or 'atheist'. Most people are only used to two general worldviews, theism and atheism. Of course, there is now a huge population of 'spiritual, but not religious'. .... So there are 'beliefs' in spirituality, and there are 'beliefs' in the scientific community. As a very intelligent friend of mine titled his book, 'A Third Window', there are even differences in those. You might enjoy that book, if you would like to do a search for it. He and I aren't perfectly in sync in our perspectives, but his book is definitely worth a read. :nerd:

My understanding of Peirce is rudimentary, but I do know that he felt obliged to adopt scholastic realism, that is, acceptance of the reality of universals. And the kind of reality they posses is central to the issue. So rejecting metaphysics because of its association with religion is precisely to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Wayfarer

As you get to know me better, I think you'll find that there is a lot more to Peirce's views on Scholastic realism than appears on the surface, and that my metaphysical perspectives are much more involved than what might appear at this point in our discussions. :halo:

is he morally responsible — Matei

If there is enough freedom in a given reactive situation that an outcome can be avoided, then I think it would be hard to argue for direct cause.

In other words, did he hold a knife to her throat and tell her that she must shoot herself? Was she so emotionally unstable that she felt she had no other choice? There are too many variables to your question. An outside observer will only judge her according to their own perspective and experiences. One person's emotional strength can be very different from another's. I think that if a person actually stops, looks back and reflects upon whether or not they could have done something to prevent a tragedy, that in itself implies that they may have had some moral responsibility that they neglected to act upon. I think we should all be more aware of how we affect or neglect others.

So what is 'real' is the form or idea of the individual particular, and the ability to discern that form is the basis of rational thought. — Wayfarer

There are a couple of other things I would like to hone in on in the essay about Ockham and nominalism.
First, this...
"If Gregory and Dupré can condemn Ockham for such polar opposite theological exaggerations—elevating God above the reach of reason, or demoting Him to the realm of creatures—we should wonder whether we should start our investigation somewhere other than in theology."

I couldn't be more in agreement with that statement. Although you make some excellent points in regard to Thomism, I have always preferred not to dwell long in any of the thought camps that have such strong ties to religious doctrine. I definitely take Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and other religious histories into account when doing my research, because I think it's very important to understand how splits in thinking and cultural changes took place as new information and ideas have presented themselves, but my intentions in all of my studies is to stay on a path of natural science. I see it as a sort of hypocrisy to criticize nominalists and Scientism followers of Descartes for being so grounded in religion, only to argue their points with more theology based philosophy. Please don't misunderstand me on this. A human is a human, and no human walking this earth is without having been affected in some way or another by how religion has influenced cultures all over the world. To a certain degree, it is unavoidable. ... But the thinkers I find most compelling in their research, writings, and logical rationalities are those who approach their studies with similar intentions as my own.

Second, this...
"“No universals, only individuals, exist outside the mind, and it is from those extramental realities that knowledge has its first beginnings.”

It is easy to see in the above statement how nominalism (and its voluntarism) is a direct descendant of theology. As if each individual was separately formed of clay by God's hands. This nominalism has instilled an exceptionalist attitude in humanity, and actually into each individual person, creating a world saturated with narcissism.

"And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it."

Our actual reality though, is that each human being develops their identity only in relation to others and their environment. An individual child recognizes their uniqueness because of the inherent aptitude to differentiate. Yes, it is true that we each carry a uniquely combined genetic code, but it is one that is influenced by our environment and experiences (epigenetics), and now science has evidence that these epigenetic changes (nervous system memory) can be carried into subsequent generations. The point is that there is continuity, and all life is dependent on other lifeforms, not only for what other lifeforms can 'supply' as in 'resources', but for personal identity itself. There are no detached individuals, and nominalism is a destructive thought virus that has wreaked havoc on humanity and our biosphere.

I have some other thoughts I would like to expand on in regard to Locke and the relationship between rationality and voluntarism, and at some point I want to get back to the topic of Peirce and continuity, but my day is tugging at me. I will have to post again later.

I think you will appreciate this essay — Wayfarer

This is one of my favorite paragraphs in that essay. I have an interesting relationship with the philosophy of David Hume. I like his style. :cool: ..... This tidbit is something that @Gnomon might also want to comment on.

"It is commonly said that modern science neglects formal causes but attends to efficient and material causes; but classically understood, efficient and material causes cannot function or even be conceived without formal causes, for it is form which informs matter, giving concrete objects their power to act on other objects. The loss of formal causality is thus in a sense the loss of efficient and material causality as well—an implication that is not quite fully realized until we see it brilliantly explored in the philosophy of David Hume"

I think you will appreciate this essay if you haven’t previously encountered it. — Wayfarer

Thank you. :smile:
Yes, I've read that one. Many good points in it.

I refer to nominalism as a 'thought virus'.

I really should also point out that Henry Stubbe and John Locke were not approaching these 'turns' of humanity in the same way. Locke was certainly familiar with Stubbe's writings about semiotics. Stubbe had created a bit of a stir, and Locke had his sights on the politics of the day. In that chapter of 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' he wrote "that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness:". His reference to voluntarism clearly expressed the amount of emphasis on 'Will', that had begun with Abelard, and set in with Ockham, that God could 'Will' whatever He wanted. And because Man is made in God's image, Man had this same individual Will. Humanism took that and ran with it.

Nominalists and followers of Descartes are steeped in religion. Most just have no clue.
.
Here's a bit on Descartes and Voluntarism......
"From 1630 to 1649, Descartes endorses theological voluntarism, the claim that God's will determines aspects of reality typically thought independent of it." ....... "an exhaustive look at the texts shows Descartes affirming voluntarism unambiguously from 1630 right to the end of his life."
Springer Link .... Is Descartes’ Theological Voluntarism Compatible with His Philosophy?

? — Srap Tasmaner

'1800s' was a typo. I am editing it.

? — Srap Tasmaner

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/locke0421.htm

I suppose that Pierce (*Peirce, as in 'purse') intended to reconcile Realism & Idealism in his philosophy. — Gnomon

I think that one of the biggest difficulties others have in understanding Peirce is that nominalists are approaching him from a distorted, distant view of the end of his path, without taking the time to see how he traveled there. Being a logician, he wanted to get down to the bottom of the problem and then walk forward with very deliberate, highly skilled, logical steps. Misunderstanding negation is another problem many people have in understanding Peirce. I think that's also a skewed, nominalist perspective. I think that any person who wants to get serious or even dabble in philosophy should start with a very clear understanding of negation. <<< I'll get back to that later.

In my episode 5, I talk about how Peirce focused quite a bit on the era of Scholasticism and how he began by talking about one of its pioneers, Peter Abelard. Peter Abelard was really the beginning of the out-of-control nominalism we have today. It was the beginning of ontological individualism. It's fascinating to research and learn about how it was seeded during that time.

One of my heroes is a man/physician who lived during the mid 17th century named Henry Stubbe. I only learned of him by really devoting the time to the research that it takes to fully understand how we got to where we are today. Armchair philosophers can sit in the here and now, and throw opinions around about what's what, and what's wrong, but there won't be any real progress accomplished by wallowing in a series of wrong turns unless one is willing to follow the breadcrumbs all the way back to the beginning and be aware enough to avoid those wrong turns. Around the time of Scholasticism, Muslim and Jewish Scholars were also analyzing Greek philosophy, and the goal of each of these religions was to reconcile Aristotle etc., with their own holy books and cultures. .... Henry Stubbe was a brilliant man who loved research and learning. He had read Greek philosophy, and he understood in the mid-1600s what John Locke later in the 1600s explained in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that the three classifications of the sciences were physics, semiotics, and ethics. Henry Stubbe was so concerned about what he learned and understood from his own research, and how British society viewed Muslims, that he took it upon himself to try and teach people about the history of the Medieval perspective wrong turns, and how it was causing humanity to become more and more divisive. I purchased a copy of the book he wrote, which is listed as a culturally significant artifact. The title is 'An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometanism'. ..... Henry Stubbe was not a promoter of Islam. He was a brilliant scholar and teacher, who just wanted to make a difference in the wrong turn he saw humanity making. It wasn't about religion in any way. It was about understanding humanity's place in the natural course of existence.

My point is that nominalism/materialism/ontological individualism dropped the third crucial aspect of natural understanding to focus on the physical sciences and the ethics that promoted 'individual' human rights. This was the major wrong turn that began in the 14th century and developed over time. ... America was founded at the height of this frenzy. Charles Peirce followed a path without the religious influences that split Western Civilization into extreme Conservative Christianity and Cartesian Scientism. ........

Ok.... that's a start for my response. I'll be back with more. :smile:

I get lost in a labyrinth of enigmas — Gnomon

Something I should have included in my last response to you. It might help to ponder on this in the in between time. As simply as can be stated, and to kick off how I will most likely approach my responses to you, think on this....

Peirce's three categories frame his entire work. They are the three irreducible modes of being.

Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.
Possibility, Actuality, and Law.

Peirce assigns habit to Thirdness.

I'll be back, but that's a starting place for my responses and elaborations. Later. :wink:

Maybe, like a stage performer, you can take a second and third bow. — Gnomon

You are one of my favorite people to converse with on a forum, so I'm sure you realize that this could end up being a long and productive discussion. If you will be patient with my limited time to devote here, I will continue our dig and excavation into these topics.

Your last post has many things in it that I would like to respond to and elaborate on. Please give me a little time. I'll be back. :cool:

thanks. — Wayfarer

I should be thanking you. My subject matter is not exactly mainstream. When I happen to come across someone I can converse with about it, I just can't help but smile. :grin:

I'm reading from a book called Pierce and the Threat of Nominalism. — Wayfarer

I am very familiar with that book. :smile: Some of the reviews say that Forster's position and argument are lacking, but I suggest that you keep in mind while you are reading it that more and more of Peirce's work has been examined and become better understood even in the last decade. That, and the fact that nominalists are always going to pounce on any book expressing how their view is a 'threat'.

Yes, Peirce was a fierce 'anti-nominalist', and after decades of research and study, I am right there with him. :brow:

Can you elaborate? — Gnomon

Not fair, Gnomon. ;-) You know I am trying to bow out.

In what sense do they exist? :smile: — Gnomon

Don't you actually mean "In what sense are they real?

We abstract information provided in our surrounding medium by signs that we interpret. Triadic sign systems flow throughout the existence of all life forms, even within our bodies as genetic and epigenetic coding and decoding. This is in essence 'biological dialogue'. Does it exist? As in can you touch it? Can you measure it? No. ..... But isn't it real? Absolutely.

Peirce focused on laws and habits regarding the difference between what exists and what is real. Laws of nature. Laws of mathematics. Laws of physics. Laws of logic. ....etc..

The term 'Synechism' is what Charles Peirce gave to a set of related ideas:

(1) "the doctrine that all that exists is continuous" (CP 1.172);
(2) the rejection of atomism and the existence of ultimate elements;
(3) the view that continuity of being is a condition for communication (CP 7.572);
(4) the view that to exist in some respect is also to not exist in that respect (CP 7.569);
(5) the view that "all phenomena are of one character" consisting of a mixture of freedom and constraint that tends in a teleological manner to increase the reasonableness in the universe (CP 7.570);
(6) the view that consciousness has a bodily and social dimension, the latter originating outside the individual self (7.575);
(7) "the doctrine . . . that elements of Thirdness cannot entirely be escaped" (CP7.653);
(8) a theoretical synthesis of pragmatism and tychism (the doctrine that chance events occur);
(9) the fallibilist view that our scientific facts are continually subject to revision;
(10) "a purely scientific philosophy [that] may play a part in the onement of religion and Science" (CP 7.578).

Even though I fully understand each of the above.... For me, I also interpreted #4 to be akin to Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites. Think of Herclitus's example of the bow or the lyre. The tension that exists in the opposing forces. It is that tension that is inherent in all of life, and it is what causes life to strive against entropy. Life ceases in stagnation. Opposing forces exist as a law that encourages life to strive. Also, an individual identity is dependent on others and differences. We only understand 'self' in relation to that which is 'not self'.

Peirce found in his work on these fascinating results of logic (akin to Heraclitus's 'Logos') that the 'whole' of life is striving 'towards', and when following the logic step by step, it really is a fascinating journey.

mental Abstractions are a prominent component of human experience — Gnomon

Abstraction is only one step in the process. Alfred Korzybski focused on abstraction, but without understanding the steps that lead up to abstraction, and also what follows, the idea of abstraction can fall into bed with nominalism. We mustn't 'parse out' abstraction.

I would like to point out that I do not think of Peirce's perspective as the 'end all be all' explanation of everything. He even spoke of future readers of his work examining and building upon it. Again, that is the whole point (if you understand Peirce).

I look to Peirce for logic. He was a brilliant logician. Many people have a difficult time following 'logic' as a discipline, and that's ok. But the point is that people really shouldn't jump to conclusions about things they don't understand.

I look to many other highly skilled, highly admired thinkers for other angles of perception on Being and Reality. Along with Peirce, I think it's extremely important to examine any worthwhile topic from different angles (as long as they are not immersed in nominalism or religion). Emergence, chance, and continuity certainly demand that we do that.

2.abstract theory with no basis in reality. — Gnomon

I personally think this is the biggest misunderstanding about Peirce's logic. For Peirce, there is a very big difference between what exists and what is real. I also think this is a chasm between Peirce and Philosophy of Mind. This is why I tried to broach the subject of Thirdness, cognitive archetypal forms, Induction, Abduction, and Deduction on this forum, but even though the thread was active and had a real conversation going, it has been deleted. I received a message that I had a comment to reply to there, but when I went to read it I found that the whole thread no longer exists.

Perhaps another person who also understands these features of logic will have more time to devote to this forum than I do.

You don't seem to use it in its usual meaning, but more like "motherfucker." — SophistiCat

Not at all. Although, that's not a word that I would ever use, I would think that a 'm-fer' is informed enough to be intentionally destructive. On the contrary, I think that our culture is so immersed in nominalism that most people don't even realize how their perspective negatively affects others and our biosphere.

moderate and critical interest — SophistiCat

I think I would be remiss if I also didn't point out that nominalism and Cartesianism were born out of the Catholics wanting to justify God's Will, and then the Humanists taking the 'man being formed in God's image' view to justify the Will of man, and the "I think therefore I am" close-minded mirror perspective, ultimately elevating man to a self-centered, exceptionalist status, and subsequently causing some of the daunting challenges we face today.

Peirce's logic is not born out of any religious dogma. That's the whole point, and possibly why you run across some 'differentness' in those who have actually taken the time to understand it. It's extremely freeing to be rid of the religious monkey that dogmatic perspectives carry, whether they be religious or nominalist.

is almost religiously devoted to him. — SophistiCat

That's so ironic.... That's precisely how I feel about nominalists.

Thank you for your kind response. For me it's a matter of time. I have other discussion outlets that won't require years. Besides, there are already many excellent shoulders to stand on in history who have already devoted those years. The research and writing is out there for any inquiring mind. I am only picking up the baton.

right down to the note of pragmatism — Srap Tasmaner

There is Peirce's pragmaticism, and then there is what was 'parsed out' from it by William James and perverted into nominalistic pragmatism. The difference is precisely why I shouldn't stay here.

Thanks again for conversing. :)

I'm sorry you have been getting the "religious nut" treatment on the forum. I think you are correct about the predominance of Nominalists, who may also be Materialists and Atomists. But in order to converse with them, you will need to try to speak their language, — Gnomon

Being on this forum, and trying to converse with "the predominance of Nominalists, who may also be Materialists and Atomists" would be very helpful for me to try and learn from their perspectives, and hopefully add to making me a better writer and teacher. However, after several attempts of trying to get into deeper discussions of emergence and continuity, and being shut down or having my posts deleted for not being brief enough or not parsing out statements for nominalistic analyzation, there's no reason for me to stay here. It seems that those are the only perspectives that this forum exists for, and just as nominalism does so well in its divisiveness, I am severed away from really being able to participate.

I am in total agreement with Peirce when he said.....

"If the captain of a vessel on a lee shore in a terrific storm finds himself in a critical position in which he must instantly either put his wheel to port acting on one hypothesis, or put his wheel to starboard acting on another hypothesis, and his vessel will infallibly be dashed to pieces if he decides the question wrongly, Ockham's razor is not worth the stout of any common seaman. For stout belief may happen to save the ship, while Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem would be only a stupid way of spelling Shipwreck. Now in matters of real practical concern, we are all in something like the situation of that sea captain."

I just have more effective things to do with my time than to go nowhere in nonsensical back and forths with nominalists.

See you around, Gnomon! I'm sure we'll bump into each other again somewhere. :wink:

I'm not sure which news outlet you are watching, but I only get mine from Associated Press and Reuters. Associated Press has Biden with 238 Electoral Votes and Trump with 214. Most of the votes are in with the exception of Pennsylvania (which has Trump leading). Even if they stay of the same color they are now, Joe Biden wins with 270.

See The World Through The Eyes Of A Cat — SophistiCat

Very cool! It kind of looks like slitted 'cat'aracts. Lol. ... And I wonder how each of those things are interpreted. I mean, I know we can study the lens of their eyes through the eyes of a human, but can we ever know for sure how it looks to their brain?

Yes, we are well aware of that. — SophistiCat

Yes. Since I am such a nerd :nerd: who has studied all types of life forms over the course of my life, I am well aware that we are well aware of that.

My question is about more than just the lens of the eyes or the lens of telescopes and cameras.

Here's one fairly informative article that might prompt a bit of imagination.....
Mantis shrimp have the world's best eyes -- but why?

And here's another .....
Mantis shrimp brain contains memory and learning centers found only in insects

And another.....
They can even see cancer......

or as any other sort of energy wave would depend on its sensory ability. — Sir2u

Yes, the brain taking in information and processing it based on the already ingrained and mapped neural network is fascinating, between different humans AND other different life forms.

But then, we tend to call most anyone a hero in these sad times. — Ciceronianus the White

With that statement, I couldn't agree more.

I have wondered what humanity would be like if we separated the 'thinking' man from the 'feeling' man. Or even more so, exactly how much progress a thinking man could make without 'imagination'. Even the most brilliant logicians recognize the importance of imagination in our cognitive reasoning process. What would an individual man strive to be without looking up to a 'hero'? I don't think man can be separated from the myth, legends, storytelling, and symbols of his collective history, and I do think that aspect of primitive nature lives on in our cultures. It can be seen in our literature, movies, video games, sports, romance, traditions, and even our politics. I can't imagine a world without that richness, and I can't imagine people void of it in their approach to life. ... But that's just me. And the differences between each of us might just be how we fit in as characters in the ongoing story.

and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions. — Ciceronianus the White

I completely understand how you could feel that way just from a surface understanding.

When I combine it with the understanding of a 'bridge' between instinct, induction, abduction, deduction, the interplay that takes place in a species specific semiosphere, and how this epigenetically feeds back down to the organism, a collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me.

I just realized that this is the post you may have been referring to. It ended up not being in the Lounge. ..

Thirdness, Induction, Top Down and Bottom Up, ... and symbols

I enjoyed reading your story as well. Thank you for sharing it.

Have a very pleasant morning or evening, depending on where you are in this world. :)

I have several new posts, but here is the only recent post I have in 'the Lounge".
Lounge post

I'm always glad to hear that others are doing well in these difficult times. :)

Dear KerimF,

I just posted an interesting story that I think you will enjoy. Follow this link if you would like to read it. A Letter to My Sisters

Kindest regards to you. :)

Yes, from my own two different experiences, time is different there.

Morality is not an arbitrary choice, but a deliberate decision to act in the interest of others. A freewill Agent acts in self-interest. A Moral Agent acts in Other's interest. :smile: — Gnomon

:clap: :ok: :cheer:

I wonder if in your various long studies you ended up realising, as I did, that:

If someone cannot trust himself (his mind, his heart and his soul) more than anyone else, he has no choice but to be a shadow of someone else. — KerimF

Hmm.... I'm not sure exactly in what context you mean this towards me. My only response would be that there is a big difference between being a 'shadow' and understanding that individual identity depends on interactions with others. Cognitive develop happens when we compare our 'self' with the world around us.

Here is a response I shared with someone recently. Perhaps it will help you understand my perspective a bit better. ........

"Early mornings are my quiet time for reading and research. This morning I devoted that time to what you emailed to me. Thank you.

Here are my thoughts...

You make some good points. The only thing I would encourage you to consider is that unwinding the damage that has been done by seven centuries of nominalism in Western Civilization is a monumental task. One that I have determined to be impossible without us teaching the masses where it started and how we got here. Yes, the media has definitely contributed to it, but I would suggest that the media is just as much a victim of nominalism as the consuming masses. They feed off of each other. Please watch this short video with Professor Michael Allen Gillespie explaining the first major media influence on the Western world (the printing press), and how rapidly nominalism spread via Martin Luther's 95 theses. After watching the video, please read this review of his book explaining the terribly wrong turn humanity took with nominalism. I have corresponded with Dr. Gillespie, and he is working on his followup book 'The Theological Fate of Modernity'. I look forward to reading it. Charles Sanders Peirce was a FIERCE anti-nominalist, and after years of study and research, I am in total agreement with him. Nominalism is causing the collapse of civilization, and terrible damage to the resources that support humanity.

https://youtu.be/oYSgj6CziKQ

https://voegelinview.com/theological-origins-of-modernity-review/

Because of 'cognitive mapping' that is unique to each individual, we each take our experiences and perspectives on the world and look for patterns to make sense of them. The media is a mirror of our culture, so this too seems to be its main purpose. When this pattern seeking, cognitive mapping phenomenon exponentiates in the fragmentation brought on by nominalism (nothing exists but 'particulars' and 'individuals'), further slicing community cohesion, and dividing us into smaller and smaller fragments of society, we lose the crucial dialogue needed between people of different perspectives. Synechism explains that there is continuity in all of creation, and that continuity is necessary for human identity. An individual person only becomes unique by recognizing that it is different from another. Without the 'other', even individual identity breaks down. There is no 'I' without the 'other', and it's imperative that that 'other' is actually different for comparison (not identical in class, skin color, or life experience). Consider how a child learns about being a boy or a girl by watching mom and dad. There is no recognition of short or tall, blonde or brunette, without the 'other'. Nominalism causes the severing of otherness, and the fragmentation of society. Dialogue shuts down, and individuals are pulled further and further into those media 'narratives' like a whirlpool. This is even encouraged by our hyper consumer ontological individualism (byproduct of nominalism), right down to our own signature latte or craft beer.

Again, the cause of the huge challenges we face today is 'Nominalism', and until we face that and educate everyone we can, we will keep going down this dead end path.

Stay safe and well.

(hugs)
Cathy"

---------------------------------------------------

Way back in the day, I did a teaching exercise regarding the books of the major religions in which I told the students we were going to 'follow the water'. It's really a very fascinating exercise. One can do a search for all passages in the books that reference 'water' and see what all transpired because of cultures gathering around and involving water. I even refer to the archetypal representations of oases and wells in my most recent writing. ....... I can understand Thales' perspective that water is 'archical'.