[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

Wed Sep 28 11:27:04 EDT 2022

Mike and Eric, 

I have deleted Jon from this thread because I  have reason to believe is bores him.

I woke up this morning with my own version of the pragmaticist maxim.

The thing is just all the evidence of the thing.  

And then I realized that there is a paradox hidden in that proposed aphorism that irritates me.  That makes me want to rewrite it perhaps as follows: 

The thing is a model inspired by all the evidence of the thing.

Now I have gotten very close to Peirce’s:

All thought is in signs.

My monism is pretty primitive, childlike, even.  God aside, all that is comes to

us through experience, including of course, via experiences of other’s experiences.  Now, I quickly have to admit that some experience is built into our bodies through natural selection.  But then, I think, I am done making concessions.   

I am perhaps guilty, in the first instance, of trying to keep an argument alive.  Perhaps I should have said I find the original hypothetical just stupid.  Whether we are talking of atoms or talking of flasks, we are always talking of consequences, relations in experience.  When we speak of flasks, the web of experience to which we refer is teensy; when we speak of atoms, it is vast.  

As you both should know by now, I find arguments between different kinds of monists nugatory.  Once one has declared oneself a monist,  which kind of monist one is, as Peirce would say, is “Just a matter of language.”  Arguing for one form or another, except as a matter of taste, demeans the cause and reveals the contestants as closet dualists.   I would not have encouraged my student to “accuse” the tech of “materialism”.  I find switching back and forth between Holt’s materialism and Perry’s neutral monism largely inconsequential.  Like deciding whether to wear black or dark blue socks today. 

What follows in your discussion is fascinating, and sounds like perhaps the beginning of an essay.  However, I don’t think it has much to do with my admittedly primitive monism.  Now that Mike is really retired, I would love to hitch his wagon to our “Cognitive Psychology Sucks” star, either as a collaborator or a worthy opponent.  For reasons I cannot justify, I want to continue to publsh.  But ever since my first success (which seems miraculous in retrospect) I have been unable to hitch Mike’s wagon to any star at all.  I am not sure he shares (you share) Eric’s and my pitiably narcissitic desire to see our names in academic journals.  Indeed, I am not even sure that Eric will share that desire, now that he has been promoted to God at OMB. 

So now I am going to have some breakfast. 

Nick

Nick Thompson

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

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

From: thompnickson2 at gmail.com <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:51 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

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 <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM
To: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> >
Cc: M. D. Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net <mailto:mikebybee at earthlink.net> >; Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com> >; friam at redfish.com <mailto: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/20220928/640a4c9f/attachment-0001.html>