[MD] Pancakepsychicms and syrup that doesn't pour

[John Carl]

Ya know, dave, I'm pretty much in concordance with you here.  I just don't
see how you can denigrate Royce's Absolute Mind then, since your list
includes a many of his main influences and congruences  - Schopenhauer,
Goethe and Lotze in particular.  Not to mention his particular affinity and
appreciation (mutual, I might add) of Peirce.

I'd also add Lanza's Biocentrism to your list of recent developments in
panpsychism that seem intriguing to me.

Maybe none of these guys had thee answer, but I see them on an evolutionary
continuum heading toward that.  And definitely away from Krimel's MoR.

So I can see why he's in a snit and all.

but, whatever,

As far as this being an alternative to theism, well, no.  Certainly an
alternative to narrowly interpreted Christian theism but we both know
fundamentalist christian theology is full of crap anyway, right?  I mean, I
know I do and you sure seem derogatory towards it.  Maybe its just more of
that projection on my part.

But grasping the idea of the ultimate whole as the ultimate value... and
stipulating a conscious whole, all-inclusive and Spinozaist whole, seems
like a pragmatically useful theism for a culture so out of whack with
nature.

but whatever.

whatever you do, keep up the good work, dave.   I was starting to get
worried there for a bit, but I can see there's some hope after all.


John





On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> In another thread, Krimel said:
> .... Seriously talking about the inanimate world in terms of agency,
> preference and "betterness" is a retreat into a world of spirits, and
> thunder gods. Animism is universal in primitive peoples and small children.
> Grown-ups ought to know better.
>
>
>
> dmb quotes a grown-up who ought to know better,  talking about other
> grown-ups who also ought to know better:
>
>
> "Diderot’s work D’Alembert’s Dream (1769) put forth a very explicit
> panpsychist view: “this faculty of sensation…is a general and essential
> quality of matter” (1769/1937: 49). Throughout the dialogue one finds
> repeated references to the “general sensitivity of matter.” At one point he
> observes that “[f]rom the elephant to the flea, from the flea to the
> sensitive living atom, the origin of all, there is no point in nature but
> suffers and enjoys” (ibid: 80). In the century following the French
> Enlightenment, panpsychist thought developed most rapidly in Germany. Among
> its more prominent advocates: Herder, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Fechner, Lotze,
> Hartmann, Mach, and Haeckel."
>
>
> "Charles Peirce’s article, “Man’s Glassy Essence” (1892), begins by noting
> “[T]here is fair analogical inference that all protoplasm feels. It not only
> feels but exercises all the functions of mind” (1892/1992: 343). And yet
> protoplasm is simply complex chemistry, a particular arrangement of
> molecules. We are therefore compelled “[to] admit that physical events are
> but degraded or undeveloped forms of psychical events” (ibid: 348). Peirce
> then laid out his own dual-aspect theory of mind: [A]ll mind is directly or
> indirectly connected with all matter, and acts in a more or less regular
> way; so that all mind more or less partakes of the nature of matter. [...]
> Viewing a thing from the outside, [...] it appears as matter. Viewing it
> from the inside, [...] it appears as consciousness (ibid: 349)."
>
>
> "Freeman Dyson: “The laws [of physics] leave a place for mind in the
> description of every molecule… In other words, mind is already inherent in
> every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in
> degree and not in kind…” (1979: 249).
>
> David Bohm: “That which we experience as mind…will in a natural way
> ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the
> particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these
> levels. … It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is
> present even at the level of particle physics” (1986: 131).
>
>
> Panpsychism enters the 21st century with vigor and diversity of thought. A
> number of recent works have focused attention on it. If we look back to the
> year 1996 we find two books that contributed to a resurrection of sorts.
> First, Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind lays out a naturalistic dualism theory
> of mind in which he suggests (with an apparent diffidence) that mind can be
> associated with ubiquitous information states—following Bateson and Bohm,
> though without citing their panpsychist views. His relatively detailed
> discussion of panpsychism sparked a resurgence of discussion on the matter,
> and contributed to a wider interest."
>
>
>
> If a position can be defeated by simply quoting a dictionary or
> encyclopedia, then that position is very weak and it is very easily
> defeated.
>
>
> Krimel, you need to realize that your strange mixture of smug condescension
> and profound ignorance will not serve you well in graduate school. You might
> not believe it, but I have absolutely no wish to see you fail or get thrown
> out on your ear. But that's what's gonna happen unless you grow up and get
> your intellectual shit together. You didn't ask for this advice and I
> realize that it's not exactly sugar-coated but if you want to avoid
> disaster, I really think you ought to re-evaluate your attitudes. If you
> continue to trade in straw men and slander, I'm sure you'll be sorry. You
> desperately need to find some humility or you will be humiliated. It's a
> harsh truth but if it helps you avoid that kind of unhappiness, then this is
> very friendly advice.
>
>
>
>