[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Dear Friends,  

 

Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not well understood the issues, even from the start.   So much of subsequent characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how to

relate it to what I believe.   As understand the three of us, Mike is trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to understand Peirce insofar as he agrees with James.  But I cannot even follow those usual themes through the present discussion.  

 

Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me.  Of course the web of terms employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad network of knowledge concerning when things explode.  And I suppose, therefore, Mike might see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when I stress the relation between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES and bad consequences.  I accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him making it.  

 

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.

 

I never really understood how the words real and facts are working in this hypothetical and why the Labtech thinks that their safety, in the instant, is better guaranteed by knowing about atoms, than by knowing to keep the two flasks separate.  

 

As for the rest, I am completely lost.  I really need to pull it out into a single document and study the damn thing.  I am torn between an impulse to capitalize on Mike’s participation and the fact that I have much else on my plate right now. 

 

Are we perhaps writing something here?   If so, I will  try to do my best to put aside everything else and pitch in.  

 

I love you guys, honest!

 

Nick 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM
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 <mailto: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/20220927/ec553e5d/attachment.html>