[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal
I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question.
One more question:
Do we carry a constant something around with us?
And does that constant something not develop/change?
(if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence
And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support
Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here...
someone switch sides?).
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this
> reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than the
> idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling our
> activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might want to
> call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not making an
> argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you know that. I am
> saying that our conception of development has similarities to the
> conception of intelligent design, in that there is a mind, an internal,
> constant force which is manipulating activity. One of the reasons the
> early Pragmatists were no against dualism is because of the destructive
> tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. If we can't get there then I
> would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction.
> From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> on behalf of Martin John Packer [email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal
> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the
> explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue of
> Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order we see
> in the universe must have been designed, and design requires intelligence,
> therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that argument convincing,
> or you would not suggest the parallel. I, however, do not find it a
> convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time.
> In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over
> time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual
> psychological development must require something that remains "constant as
> the circumstances of activity constantly change.” Well, children are born
> into a highly structured social context. And LSV *does* posit something
> else that is, or becomes, relatively “constant” in human psychological
> development: he calls it personality. Not mind.
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602