[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal



Don't mind the piling on.  Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal

Michael,
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
perhaps?)

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?).

-greg




On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Michael
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer 
> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
> 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.
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>


--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson