<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Jon,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I wrote this immediately but forgot to send it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I have to say, the idea of a squandered metaphor really grabbed me. I may have squandered some metaphors, in my own time. A metaphor is definitely something that can be used prematurely or other than for its highest and best use. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other than that they share a linguistic root. Honest. I have trouble seeing the connection. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As I understand it, </span></i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>“monism” is a philosophical position that asserts that there is only one kind of stuff. There are materialist monists, idealist monists, and neutral monists. My “experience monism” (which I attribute to Peirce) is meant to be a form of neutral monism. It makes no claim, takes no interest in, any claim that “experience” is either “in the mind” or “of the world”. Experience just is. Experiences represent only other experiences. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I don’t have much of a grip on MonADism. As I understand monads, they are irreduceable “atoms” of existence. They have no innards. Now I suppose [he said, thinking aloud] that I might believe that everything that is consists of irreduceable particles of unchanging properties … and that would be a monist monadism. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I am still tantalized by the thought that “you-guys” know something that arises from the depth of your practice that could be put into words for a person like me. I have written a little on metaphors in science, published less. But what I have learned suggests that the more specific and the less handwavey a metaphor is, the more “juice” it has. In that connection, I was sorry we didn’t pursue further John Balwit’s example of <b><i>Goedel, Escher, and Bach</i></b>, as a book that points into the heart of computation by describing three different practices that are peripheral to it and inviting the reader to get a feel for what they have in common. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I hope some folks follow up on your suggestion. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Nick <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Nicholas S. Thompson<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Clark University<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/">http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Jon Zingale [mailto:jonzingale@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nick Thompson <nickthompson@earthlink.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Motives - Was Abduction<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>Marcus,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>There is almost something ironic about mentioning<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>monads in a discussion which continues to skirt<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>relationships between monist and dualist perspectives.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>Unlike Leibniz's notion of monad (classic monism),<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>the 'functional programming' notion of monad is<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>necessarily steeped in dualism (thanks category theory).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>While it is amusing that these categorical structures<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>have found a home in the tool sets of functional<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>programmers (thanks Moggi), it is the case that they<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>are often misrepresented in the poetry of armchair<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>philosophers across the internet:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>Q: How is a monad like Vegas?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>A: What happens in a monad stays in a monad.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>In an effort to avoid a continuous stream of squandered<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>metaphors and endless meandering I wish to see this<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>metaphor spelled out further. In your example, what<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>would the multiplication for the monad be? If it is fair<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>to say that this is a monad, in what sense are the units<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>and multiplication natural? Lastly, what are the categories<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>(objects and morphisms)?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>As far as characterizing subjectivity and degrees of<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>failure, would it perhaps be more fair to suggest a<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>comonadic model?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333'>Jonathan Zingale<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>