[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

Wed Sep 28 15:55:10 EDT 2022

It's not called breakfast at noon.  I am wearing black socks.  During the
Korean War my dad would say that he had to wear his blue uniform.  I would
say that it wasn't blue but black.  I have it stored away.  There's nothing
blue about it.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 9:28 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> 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>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220928/048d4d34/attachment.html>