What I am actually doing is taking a position that wraps first, second and third person points of view together in a single metaphysics - a metaphysics that is triadic. — apokrisis
Where is the evidence or the logic that says that consciousness can exist in the absence of a content? — apokrisis
My assertion is that it's being used in such a way that it doesn't explain anything. The particle physics and the chemistry levels do each explain something, but the Informationists are saying it's information that is doing the work in both cases. — Daemon
I was vaguely hoping you understood Apo's position so you could explain it to me, but It's a big ask. — bert1
“Evolutionary Love” is one of Peirce’s most fascinating philosophical writings. It describes the existence of a cosmic principle of love throughout the universe creatively supporting the formation of new evolutionary forms. This love is a cherishing form of love, because it recognizes that which is lovely in another being and sympathetically supports its existence. Peirce calls his new theory “agapism,” and he contrasts it with evolutionary theories that are based on a selfish form of love; these preach “the Gospel of Greed.” Peirce points out the occurrence of such selfish, greed-based thinking in the modern politico-economical structures, and in Darwin’s biological principle of natural selection based on the competition of private interests. On the other hand, agapism promotes a devotion to helping one’s neighbors, and is a true doctrine of Christian ethics.
The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, will hardly find defenders today. Rejecting this, we are driven to some form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism. Then the question arises whether physical laws on the one hand and the psychical law on the other are to be taken:
(A) as independent, a doctrine often called monism, but which I would name neutralism; or,
(B) the psychical law as derived and special, the physical law alone as primordial, which is materialism; or,
(C) the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial, which is idealism.
The materialistic doctrine seems to me quite as repugnant to scientific logic as to common sense ( :clap: ); since it requires us to suppose that a certain kind of mechanism will feel, which would be a hypothesis absolutely irreducible to reason, – an ultimate, inexplicable regularity; while the only possible justification of any theory is that it should make things clear and reasonable.
Neutralism is sufficiently condemned by the logical maxim known as Ockham’s razor, i.e., that not more independent elements are to be supposed than necessary. By placing the inward and outward aspects of substance on a par, it seems to render both primordial.
The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. — C S Peirce, The Architecture of Theories
Is this your own idea or the idea of another philosopher?
Does it have a connection to Peirce's triad? — ZzzoneiroCosm
You and me is a second person view of two individuals in interaction. Peircean secondness, in other words. — apokrisis
In medieval times, monks could be had up for the sin of accidie - a failure to feel the full private fervour of religious experience and merely going through the public semblance of prayer and exhaltation. — apokrisis
Is this really so hard to understand? [Of course it bloody is. :grin: ] — apokrisis
Claims about stilling the mind are as believable as claims about levitating the body. — apokrisis
And Peirce had the genius to indeed turn it back into a logic of relations. — apokrisis
Claims about stilling the mind are as believable as claims about levitating the body. — apokrisis
I would have said it could be either a first person view; I feel me, and I take it for granted that you feel you, even though I cannot feel you. I also take it for granted that you cannot feel me. I don't understand what you are taking the second person view to be; IE how it would differ from both first and third person views. — Janus
I wish I could grasp what you said there and its significance, but I lack the background. If it is so hard to understand and only grasped by a few specialists after long study, then it would seem arcane, and I'm not seeing how it could therefore be useful to the vast majority of people, and to society and mankind in general. — Janus
That's something you'd need to experience. I can attest that it is possible, but that it does not involve the cessation of all thought. So, it's not what the inexperienced might think, and it really cannot be explained. — Janus
In a state of stillness, thoughts can be observed arising and crossing the mind like birds flying across a clear sky. — Janus
You just want to elevate this secondness to something fixed and standalone when it can only, in Peirce's analysis, arise within a logic of relations. — apokrisis
And then they get back to sermonising on the Hard Problem. — apokrisis
So I've done the phenomenological research as well as understanding the neuroscientific reasons why this is a BS ambition. — apokrisis
I've taken part in sensory deprivation experiments. My judo teacher was a Zen monk and we had to sit in the tropical sun, lotus style, ignoring the arriving mosquitoes.
So I've done the phenomenological research — apokrisis
I'm chary of the word "stillness" vis-a-vis the human mind. I don't think literal stillness is something the mind can do. After 20 years of meditative practice, the pursuit of stillness strikes me as a major, possibly the preeminent, pitfall of meditative aspiration. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I didn't see this particular triad in a list of Peirce's triads... — ZzzoneiroCosm
"stillness" consists in resisting the movement of thoughts; in not following them. — Janus
So Peirce used first, second and third person grammar to get started in his early work. — apokrisis
Except the mind isn’t a mirror of the world, it’s a reciprocal interaction with an environment. Thoughts don’t appear before an unchanging theater of the mind , they transform the experiencer. We come back to ourself from out of what we perceive.The "ordinary" mind is like a pond into which a stone has been thrown; it doesn't reflect the environment clearly. In a state of stillness, thoughts can be observed arising and crossing the mind like birds flying across a clear sky. — Janus
That's what I've been working toward in my practice lately: bridging the gap between meditation and lucid dreaming. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Except the mind isn’t a mirror of the world, it’s a reciprocal interaction with an environment. Thoughts don’t appear before an unchanging theater of the mind , they transform the experiencer. We come back to ourself from out of what we perceive. — Joshs
I don't think you'd say that if you had experienced it even for a few moments. — Janus
Ignoring the mosquitoes in lotus position - that's a good start - but it doesn't follow that you've achieved a meditative state. — ZzzoneiroCosm
No. It confirmed to me that the whole thing was pretentious bullshit. But still, it was another thing that got me in interested in the real story of how it all works. — apokrisis
Instead of meditation, I like to get "in the zone" playing sport. And that is of course more in keeping with my enactive metaphysics. Transcendence as a flashing down the line backhand. :wink: — apokrisis
No. It confirmed to me that the whole thing was pretentious bullshit. — apokrisis
it is always a matter of faith — Janus
Don Juan gave to Castaneda was to find his hands in his dream. I used to try that and I once found them, but then I descended into a kind of "pit" of paralysis accompanied by an intense grinding sound, where I felt I was about to die and I had to struggle back to normal consciousness. — Janus
There are a few more or less scholarly works on lucid dreaming that can help, I'll send them your way if you're interested. A Google search would do it too. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
I had some wild experiences with hallucinogens 20 years ago so now I only microdose. Not sure I've seen the same pit but I've certainly encountered a pit or two of my own. The microdosing is an interesting solution to the bad-trip issue. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.