[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Mike captures key aspects of what I was trying to say very well: That there
are different types of conversations happening, and they involve different
levels of clarity.

Glen also picks up on the general assholery which might have been too
subtle for Nick, so I want to draw it out for a few more sentences and then
re-ask the base questions about what Nick thinks of the interactions. So,
starting from the end of the prior dialog....
----------
Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!?
You know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's
experiences all the way down!
Lab tech: Ok, whatever, I don't care about that right now. What I *need* is
for you to follow the safety procedures, which are in place for a reason.
And in particular, at this moment, I need you to be careful with the
chemicals that are on the desk.
Student: <playing with vials> The experience-chemicals on the
experience-desk? This is all just expectations about predictions! God you
are naive! You should really take Dr. Thompson's class!
Lab tech: <taking vials off desk and storing them in a cabinet> Seriously,
I think it's time for you to leave.
Student: What? Just because *you* are naive enough to believe in
materialism, *I* need to get out?!?
Lab tech: Apparently.
-----------

How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like
the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
message gone awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech
under the same circumstances?

What am I trying to emphasize more strongly:   Students who refuse to
follow safety procedures, because those procedures are just based on
materialist drivel, which Dr. Thompson taught them is crap, are, *I hope we
would all agree*, students who it is reasonable to kick out of the
chemistry lab. The intellectual activity of rejecting materialist-monism
has little, if any, connection with whether you should follow the
instructions you have been given for proper handling of "materials" in the
lab.

And further:   It would be understandable that if Nick started creating an
abundance of such students - students who refused to follow any
requests/rules/guidance that seemed rooted in materialist thought - it
would eventually lead to some serious strain between Nick and his
colleagues.

To try to draw out the latter points: If Nick were teaching at Columbia, or
UCLA, and his students routinely interacted with students and faculty in
the Material Science program, AND the typical form of such interaction was
an incredulous "What? You believe in material?!? I'm embarrassed for you!",
that would be a far cry from the intention of whatever lesson Nick was
trying to teach them.... right? Rejecting *material*ism as a foundational
philosophical principle has f^ck all to do with whether your *material* of
choice when building a jet engine fan should be aluminium or titanium....
right?

<echarles at american.edu>


On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Let me summarize, if I can:
>
>             First, the distinction between operationalism and praxis-ism
> and the praxis-ist definition of definition.
>
>             Percy Bridgman’s operationalism insists that every operation
> denotes a separate concept.  That is, the concept ‘length’ when determined
> by a tape measure is a different concept than the concept ‘length’
> determined by a ruler.
>
>             Peirce (following what Lavoisier does instead of what
> Lavoisier says) says that a given concept is determined by all the praxis /
> experimental determinations combined.  This reflects his remarks on
> consilience and so on.
>
>             So much for operationalism and pragmatism (qua praxis-ism, not
> utilitarianism or expediency-ism).
>
>             Would you say that agrees with your sense, Nick?  So far, so
> good?
>
>
>
>             But now I’m not sure to what extent we see Eric’s imagined
> dialogue from the same point of view.
>
>             When it comes to discourse or to dialogues such as the one
> Eric imagined for us, Peirce has the notion of different “levels of
> clarity.”  His illustration is the concept of ‘reality.’  At the “level” of
> familiarity, nothing could be clearer than this, he says.  Then he says, “As
> for clearness in its second grade, however, it would probably puzzle most
> men, even among those of a reflective turn of mind, to give an abstract
> definition of the real.”  So, the next “level” up from familiarity is that
> level he calls “abstract definition.”
>
>             But then (he says) “But, however satisfactory such a
> definition may be found, it would be a great mistake to suppose that it
> makes the idea of reality perfectly clear.”  We need to be clearer—and more
> distinct as well, I imagine.
>
>             This is similar to so-called “provisional” terminology in
> Buddhism and “ultimate” terminology.  At the provision level we can speak
> about such things as fists and kicks and so on, but at the ultimate level
> (so to speak), we know that by “fist,” we mean nothing more than a
> particular configuration of a hand and fingers.  A fist is actually an
> epiphenomenon.  So, too, with “kick.”
>
>             So, we can be speaking OF THE SAME THING at different levels
> of clarity (and distinctness).
>
>             And given Eric’s imagined dialogue, we can see that speakers
> can sometimes not even grasp that they’re speaking of the same thing, just
> at different levels of clarity and distinctness!
>
>             At least, I thought that’s what Eric’s dialogue made
> abundantly clear.  On the one hand, we have a lab tech speaking at one
> level (say, the level of familiarity).  On the other hand, we have a
> student who’s speaking at a different level of clarity and distinctness
> (sometimes the theoretical level, at other times the praxis-ism level).
>
>             But they’re both saying the same thing.
>
>
>
>             Is that another way of saying what you were saying, Nick?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 12:59 PM
> *To:* 'Mike Bybee' <mikebybee at earthlink.net>; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My
> response to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument,
> which he himself disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single
> operation or even by operations within a single paradigm is operationism,
> which I, as a pragmatist, condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable
> operations is the pragmaticist “meaning” of the concept.  Now, in
> disavowing this “Quantitative” distinction between operationism and
> pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for some “essence” which is aside
> from all operations that might flow from adoption of the concept.  I wrote
> you both about this, and neither has replied.
>
>
>
> Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that
> she has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry
> building.  Most students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass
> out into the quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her
> ground with the lab tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear
> on her.
>
>
>
> As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.
> First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some
> consequences are more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the
> heat of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional
> consequences are consequences.  We could do experiments on them.
>
>
>
> But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire
> consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab
> technique, as if they become more consequention when they are understood in
> atomic terms.  As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their
> “atomicness”.  This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy
> essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I would have been even more
> proud of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes
> no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous here, what I must be
> steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular
> circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention,
> find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles might help
> me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the
> explosion, not in the atoms.
>
> !
>
> In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a
> chemistry experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an
> explosion.  The students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as
> it happened), on the ground that the two chemicals involved *could not
> have exploded!  *The chemistry department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean
> threw they out, but with a Deanly wink encouraging application for
> re-admission in the following year.
>
>
>
> Have I answered your question?
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
> *To:* 'Nicholas Thompson' <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this.
>
>             Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin?
>
>             I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here.
>
>             First, it’s in the context of chemistry, Peirce’s paradigm for
> how-to-do-philosophy, so this makes Peirce’s point perfectly.
>
>             Second, Eric has situated it as a discussion between a lab
> tech and a student, not between a chemistry professor and a student.  That
> makes the whole thing far more poignant—but makes the whole tension between
> the Peirce’s levels of discourse so in-your-face as well.
>
>             Anyway,
>
>             I’m really curious to see how Nick will address Eric’s
> adventitious example, and I don’t want this to get lost in the autumn
> leaves!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:47 AM
> *To:* Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* M. D. Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>; Jon Zingale <
> jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, Hence
> no Internet.
>
>
>
> But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will get
> back to you when I do not have to thumb my answer.
>
> N
>
> Sent from my Dumb Phone
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Nick,
>
> You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought of
> a good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting discussion,
> which is why others are copied here.)
>
>
>
> Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been
> tentatively including your current monism more and more in some of the
> classes. When walking by the Chemistry labs, you recognize the voice of an
> enthusiastic student you had last quarter,, and you start to ease drop. The
> conversation is as follows:
>
> Lab tech: Be careful with that! If it mixes with the potassium solution,
> it can become explosive, we would have to evacuate the building.
> Student: What do you mean?
> Lab tech: If the potassium mixes with chlorides at the right ratio, then
> we are *probably* safe while it is in solution, but if it dries up, it is a
> hard-core explosive and it wouldn't take much to level the whole building.
> We would have to take that threat seriously, and evacuate the building
> until I made the solution safe.
> Student: Oh, a predictions about future experiences, I like those!
> Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be
> careful so it doesn't happen.
> Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if
> certain experiences happen now.
> Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean...
> yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under
> certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the
> damage it could cause are well known facts. Look, man, if you aren't here
> to learn how to be safe with the chemicals, then maybe you should just
> leave.
> Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are you?!?
> You know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? It's
> experiences all the way down!
>
> Listening in, you can tell that the student is taking this line based on
> your influence, because it sounds like things they were kinda-sorta
> starting to grock in your class.
>
> How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound like
> the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended
> message gone awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech
> under the same circumstances?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220920/a6fa73c0/attachment.html>