No one complained to you because you had links in your text, Catherine.

People complained that your topic mostly asked people to go through a huge amount of sources you deemed worthy instead of giving arguments for anything or any kind of reason to go through your sources except the fact that you deemed them worthy.

That seems like promoting to many. How is this topic any different? It doesn't have links, but it still asks people to go through large sources because you deem them worthy.

These are interesting topics I'd like to discuss, Catherine. But there are millions of sources to read about these issues. I'm not going to go through your specific sources unless you give me reasons that make them interesting. Like: saying some key arguments or interesting points they make. Then we could start discussing those and if that discussion was intriguing that would make people more interested in reading your sources.

Again, what am I to say other than nominalism and ontological individualism? Duns Scotus? These are my points. You keep asking me for points. I keep giving them. This is a philosophy forum. Are these terms not familiar to people here? Other members have stated that they want a better understanding of Peirce. I am only trying to comply.

ontological individualism, — Mapping the Medium

Could you explain this term?

Well, you could at least say in your title and text that this topic is mainly about these specific sources, since people seem to get the wrong idea that it is a general discussion about the topic and get frustrated since there is nothing to talk about except a couple of particular sources.

There is nothing wrong about starting a thread about particular sources, but your titles and texts are misleading.

It's the same as starting a topic: Religion: an interesting thing. And then just promoting the bible and saying that your are only interested in talking about what the bible says without giving any specific examples of what you are interested in the bible.

As our brain networking develops prenatally, we start creating a 'cognitive map' of our physical and metaphorical environment, creating a scaffold of semiotic understanding of our own model of reality. Everyone's is unique, because no person has the same experiences or is exposed to the same environmental factors. Every mapped connection in the brain is engrained, and leads to how future interactions or experiences are processed, incorporated. and mapped, leading to understanding or often 'misunderstanding'. If something is misunderstood, the person will incorporate new experiences in such a way as to make it fit with that misunderstanding. This happens in every human brain.

America was founded during a time in history when individual rights were front and center, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am", and mind/body dualism, was encouraging a freedom of individual thought, separating and elevating humans to a realm seemingly above nature, theologically in an attempt to understand the mind of God. We lost sight of the importance of shared understanding. Everyone wants to be right, when no one is. The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'.

Again, what am I to say other than nominalism and ontological individualism? Duns Scotus? These are my points. You keep asking me for points. I keep giving them. — Mapping the Medium

No, you are not giving them. Your points are in your sources and people are asking for you to give examples or anything that make your sources interesting in your text. If the problem is people not being interested enough to read your sources, you have to do something outside your sources.

Many people have started very fruitful threads based on large sources most haven't read. But they have almost always given examples or something that can be discussed or understood without reading the sources to make people interested. And they have made it clear in their text that the thread is specifically about those sources.

I'm just trying to help you, Catherine. A fruitful discussion can be had about your sources in this forum. I hope that you are successful in starting one.

I appreciate your willingness to help. I can only say that understanding Peirce's thought is very difficult because it does not align with what is typically understood in our culture. There has to be some base knowledge of some of these topics in order to understand, and that can only come from reading the sources.

I do believe there are a few people here who understand my approach, and I look forward to our discussions. All I can hope for is that the others find some interest along the way. It's impossible to please everyone. I will always try to explain topics as clearly as possible.

I think you’ll find plenty of continental philosophers haven’t taken the nominalist approach - maybe this is more about the general reluctance (historically speaking) in the US to avoid this?

It's clear that there is a difference in how America developed this 'thought' compared to Europe, and it makes sense, since individual and religious freedom was the driving force in how America came to be. It was and is hyper-individual. Now we are dealing with it.

Fully understanding nominalism and ontological individualism, where we took a drastic, misguided turn in the Middle Ages, and then revisiting Duns Scotus, is crucial to understanding much of Charles S. Peirce's thought. ... — Mapping the Medium

I don't see why you say that this is a drastic misguided turn. Further, I don't think Peirce represents this as a drastic misguided turn, so I don't see the association you are making here.

America was founded during a time in history when individual rights were front and center, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am", and mind/body dualism, was encouraging a freedom of individual thought, separating and elevating humans to a realm seemingly above nature, theologically in an attempt to understand the mind of God. We lost sight of the importance of shared understanding. Everyone wants to be right, when no one is. The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'. — Mapping the Medium

That an individual is in a very certain, and real sense, isolated from others, is a fundamental brute fact. To deny this isolation, and emphasize the reality of a united humanity, society, or some such thing, is to belie the true essence of the "Medium".

There are two approaches to this "Medium". One takes the Medium as a natural separation between individuals, and the other takes the Medium as a natural unification of the whole, humanity, or society. The latter is clearly wrong. The Medium exists as a natural separation between the individuals, and it must be manipulated artificially, through language, construction, manufacturing, production, and other institutions like those of education, to create the unity which we call society. That the Medium might become a force of unification, when its essence is separation, is the result of the inspired efforts of ambitious free willing individuals. To deny this, and claim that the Medium is a natural force of unification is to deny the reality of free will.

This is precisely where humanity has been misguided. There is a third window. Peirce illuminates it.

Do you mean a Middle Pillar?

What is that third window from Pierce's POV.?

Care to describe this so-called "third window"?

“Bringing the history of political thought up to date and situating it against the backdrop of contemporary events, Gillespie’s analyses provide us a way to begin to have conversations with the Islamic world about what is perhaps the central question within each of the three monotheistic religions: if God is omnipotent, then what is the place of human freedom?”—Joshua Mitchell, Georgetown University

From Amazon about this book.

It requires going back to Scholasticism and delving into understanding Duns Scotus in detail. I am on my phone now, but you are welcome to watch an EXCELLENT video on YouTube titled 'Duns Scotus on Being, Universals, and Individuation'. I hope to be back in here in about 10 hours or so. Busy day!

I'm happy to get into the details. I just don't have time right now.

if God is omnipotent, then what is the place of human freedom — Sherbert

Easy: we're God's finger puppets. When we go to war with each other, God is smashing his hands together and rolling all over heaven making explosive sound effects.

Speaking of the Islamic world, my pet project now is delving into Henry Stubbe. I recently purchased an amazing written work if his! He is the first to have used the term and highlight the importance of semiotics.

America was founded during a time in history when individual rights were front and center, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am", and mind/body dualism, was encouraging a freedom of individual thought, separating and elevating humans to a realm seemingly above nature, theologically in an attempt to understand the mind of God. We lost sight of the importance of shared understanding. Everyone wants to be right, when no one is. The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'. — Mapping the Medium

What you call 'ontological individualism' has been criticized for quite a while in the continental tradition. The idea of a cloaked medium is also central in Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Both of these are some of my favorite philosophical themes.

I'm not sure that we've lost sight of the importance of mutual understanding. We may not be good at it, but popular culture sings its praises. Prejudice, intolerance, xenophobia...these are the sins of our time. For just that reason they themselves are tangled up in divisiveness.

And note that you yourself spoke of shame with respect to materialism and dualism. Aren't you one more person who wants to be right? And do you not link us to screens whose content you control? While some of your critics have been harsh, I haven't seen much dialogue on your part with the few who are open to conversation. Linking to off-site content as a substitute for composing posts looks like evangelism. Are you true to your own stated principles? Or are we witnessing a monologue about the virtue of dialogue?

I am back now. My lack of dialogue is only because I have a very busy life.

Thank you for your insight. I am always open to dialogue and learning from others. It is my mantra, and the reason I joined this forum. It is unfortunate that I feel so unwelcome here, and clearly very misunderstood.

Do I want to celebrate the strides that the biological sciences have made? Absolutely! Which is why I wanted to share them here. I was hoping there were others here who also stay informed of these things and could share information with me. I am always wanting to learn about new discoveries and converse with others who are just as excited to learn as I am. I do not disagree with the strides that science has made due materialism and dualism. On the contrary. We have made tremendous scientific progress. However, I see life as triadic, not diadic. And I feel we are missing a huge component. The triadic nature is the momentum of continuity.

I have been kind and polite. I don't feel that has been reciprocated. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but it's very clear that I'm not welcome here. I do not have the luxury of staying online all day. I work hard at all that I do. If I don't give the lengthy answer that is insisted I give in the time frame of the demander, I am chastised for it.

I am very aware that I need others to learn. I do not have all of the answers. Otherness is the key to understanding. I will look elsewhere for otherness. I wish everyone here only the very best. Happy New Decade. Catherine

Read it in 2010, an important book. Review here with links to other reviews. Also see What's Wrong with Ockham. There's also a movement coming out of Cambridge called Radical Orthodoxy which has important things to say about the malign effects of nominalism on Western philosophy for which see this blog post.

I think you're right; you're much too busy and too important to participate here. And on the topic of the OP, this book covers it in complete and comprehensive detail

The Unity of Philosophical Experience, Etienne Gilson
https://www.amazon.com/Unity-Philosophical-Experience-Etienne-Gilson/dp/089870748X#customerReviews

I read that last year. He is biased

One of the links on here says "there is no escape from the fact that one’s presuppositions lead either to a transcendental, participatory philosophy or theology, or else a nihilistic philosophy that creates its own counterfeit theology". When I listen to sitar music I have a nominalistic thoughts. They are very psychedelic, but done without drugs. There is nothing nihilistic about nominalism.

I want to know if Catherine is a non-dualist. From my experience with Leo from actualized dot org, the real ones are an amoral-thinking bunch. Leo says an enlightened person can rape and murder; that there is no correlation between the two. This has been around for thousands of years in India, where it is believed either God commits crimes or no crimes can be committed. Hegel is interesting only if his dialectic ends in the key of materialism, on the note of materialism. He says some amoral things in his 1807 book as well. I'm just suspicious of this stuff..

"No finite thing has genuine existence." Pierce

So not even free will?

"the barbaric conception of personal identity must be broadened" Pierce

P-E-I-R-C-E

Pronounced 'purse'.

Messiah
Complex

I ain't singing kumbaya with Mengele. If you think your him, you're screwed

"there is no escape from the fact that one’s presuppositions lead either to a transcendental, participatory philosophy or theology, or else a nihilistic philosophy that creates its own counterfeit theology" — Gregory

What's counterfeit theology? I thought all theology was counterfeit, dogmatic, sharlatanism.

They say materialism like us still believe in religion because matter becomes sacred for us