Nominalism versus Realism
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:13 pm
In reading 'The Idea of the World', the claim is made that there is no basis for 'Realism'. That is, nothing is 'Real' until an observation is made and therefore one concludes that one cannot say anything of certain regarding "reality."
I think this is a fundamental error based on a Nominalistic perspective that cannot see that there is a reality in potentiality, in the 'hidden' Implicate Order of Quantum Mechanics. It is a mistaking of 'Physical Actuality' of the Explicate Order, for the 'Real Relational Potentiality' of the Implicate Order.
Historically this whole issue of physical actuality versus real potentiality goes back to the 17th century and the 'battle' between the Scholastics and the Cartesians. Between Scholastic Realism and Cartesian Nominalism. Which, of course, was won by Cartesian Nominalism, with Descartes making the claim that Scholastic philosophy needed to be abandoned because it was 'too complicated' and that things required simplification through the imposition of what effectively was Cartesian foundationalism--the idea that an individual could have full access to the whole truth. Now Cartesian Nominalism has, as its fall-out, physicalism, individualism, phenomenalism, and sensationalism. All of which have sustained advancements in 'objective science' but which have also created huge problems by making it axiomatic that the observer is entirely separate from the system being observed as is maintained in Newtonian Mechanics of the 'classical world'. But, as is well recognized and documented in 'The Idea of the World', quantum mechanics makes it clear that this is an untenable assumption, and one that undermines the entire Cartesian agenda. Which is what the whole book is about, basically. Which is to restore 'Idealism' and take down 'Physicalism'. But it is a mistake to take down 'Realism' with 'Physicalism'. The claim of Scholastic Realism was never that the 'Real' was the Physically Actual. Not at all! The claim was that, by way of triadic semiotics (as was fully developed by John Poinsot and published in his Tractatus di Signis in 1632), it is the Real as relational potentiality which influences what becomes physically actual. Peirce added his principle of Synechism, which is that the relational potentiality arises out of a primordial Continuum such that every moment of time has infinite depth of potentiality, that anything can happen with non-zero probability. Which is how the new and spontaneous enters into actuality.
I totally agree with Bernardo's distinction between 'consciousness' and 'meta-consciousness' with the former being what can potentially come into reportable awareness, and the latter being what has actualized into reportable awareness. Which renders the term 'unconscious' meaningless.
Even though this idea continues to be thrown around continuously and all over the place. The Scholastics recognized this in their philosophy of cognition. Everything comes into consciousness, but only a small fraction makes it into 'meta-consciousness' and a reportable level of awareness. This comes up in 'Idea of the World' in the discussion of the Libet experiments on the 'awareness' of when one is going to produce a spontaneous movement. The process is initiated in consciousness but does not reach the level of meta-consciousness until a few hundred milliseconds later. This is of huge importance for many different reasons. Including the foundations for moral culpability. Which is why Peirce was so concerned about the elevated position of Nominalism in the dominant Cartesian Nominalistic understanding that supported and abetted the undermining of the moral foundation for behavior, undermined the scientific process itself, and ultimately led to a complete dead end of skeptical nihilism. This is pretty much where we now find ourselves at this point in human history. Peirce warned about it over 100 years ago. And Peirce was not alone in seeing this wicked underbelly of Nominalism that supported the 'Gospel of Greed' based on individualism and competitive 'will-to-power' driven behavior--a sure pathway to mutually assured destruction (MADness) and a complete undermining of the 'Gospel of Love' based on cooperativity and mutually assured flourishment (MAFness).
So I would think that 'The Idea of the World' makes a basic error in mistaking Actuality for Reality and thus making the claim that Realism is undermined by this form of Idealism. In fact, it is not at all. It is all a matter of being sure to understand what is Real and what is Actual. I think this distinction is of fundamental significance, and it actually emerges clearly in Peirce's philosophical system, in Scholastic Realism and in triadic semiotics; Scholastic Realism can actually be understood in the context of Semiotics as Semiotic Realism, which realizes that the main issue with regard to experience is its interpretation in terms of its significance, its meaning. This is a dynamic function of consciousness. And, the final thing about this is that this process of interpretation, which can be called 'semiosis', or the action of signs, or 'signification', is NOT just limited to living organisms but goes ALL THE WAY DOWN the scale to the fully inanimate. And in fact, one can say that it is the capacity for semiosis that is the fundamental characteristic of consciousness, that there is 'Physiosemiosis' ( see: https://www.pdcnet.org/signsystems/cont ... _0027_0047 and https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals ... e-p375.xml ) involving inanimate matter, 'Phytosemiosis' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytosemiotics ) involving the plant form of living organism, Zoosemiosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosemiotics ) involving the animal form of living organism and Anthroposemiosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_communication ) involving the human being.
( As an aside: It is interesting to speculate regarding the significance of virosemiotics in the current global situation... for example, see: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-134 regarding a semiotic perspective regarding what this current moment in global history may be attempting to communicate )
I think this is a fundamental error based on a Nominalistic perspective that cannot see that there is a reality in potentiality, in the 'hidden' Implicate Order of Quantum Mechanics. It is a mistaking of 'Physical Actuality' of the Explicate Order, for the 'Real Relational Potentiality' of the Implicate Order.
Historically this whole issue of physical actuality versus real potentiality goes back to the 17th century and the 'battle' between the Scholastics and the Cartesians. Between Scholastic Realism and Cartesian Nominalism. Which, of course, was won by Cartesian Nominalism, with Descartes making the claim that Scholastic philosophy needed to be abandoned because it was 'too complicated' and that things required simplification through the imposition of what effectively was Cartesian foundationalism--the idea that an individual could have full access to the whole truth. Now Cartesian Nominalism has, as its fall-out, physicalism, individualism, phenomenalism, and sensationalism. All of which have sustained advancements in 'objective science' but which have also created huge problems by making it axiomatic that the observer is entirely separate from the system being observed as is maintained in Newtonian Mechanics of the 'classical world'. But, as is well recognized and documented in 'The Idea of the World', quantum mechanics makes it clear that this is an untenable assumption, and one that undermines the entire Cartesian agenda. Which is what the whole book is about, basically. Which is to restore 'Idealism' and take down 'Physicalism'. But it is a mistake to take down 'Realism' with 'Physicalism'. The claim of Scholastic Realism was never that the 'Real' was the Physically Actual. Not at all! The claim was that, by way of triadic semiotics (as was fully developed by John Poinsot and published in his Tractatus di Signis in 1632), it is the Real as relational potentiality which influences what becomes physically actual. Peirce added his principle of Synechism, which is that the relational potentiality arises out of a primordial Continuum such that every moment of time has infinite depth of potentiality, that anything can happen with non-zero probability. Which is how the new and spontaneous enters into actuality.
I totally agree with Bernardo's distinction between 'consciousness' and 'meta-consciousness' with the former being what can potentially come into reportable awareness, and the latter being what has actualized into reportable awareness. Which renders the term 'unconscious' meaningless.
Even though this idea continues to be thrown around continuously and all over the place. The Scholastics recognized this in their philosophy of cognition. Everything comes into consciousness, but only a small fraction makes it into 'meta-consciousness' and a reportable level of awareness. This comes up in 'Idea of the World' in the discussion of the Libet experiments on the 'awareness' of when one is going to produce a spontaneous movement. The process is initiated in consciousness but does not reach the level of meta-consciousness until a few hundred milliseconds later. This is of huge importance for many different reasons. Including the foundations for moral culpability. Which is why Peirce was so concerned about the elevated position of Nominalism in the dominant Cartesian Nominalistic understanding that supported and abetted the undermining of the moral foundation for behavior, undermined the scientific process itself, and ultimately led to a complete dead end of skeptical nihilism. This is pretty much where we now find ourselves at this point in human history. Peirce warned about it over 100 years ago. And Peirce was not alone in seeing this wicked underbelly of Nominalism that supported the 'Gospel of Greed' based on individualism and competitive 'will-to-power' driven behavior--a sure pathway to mutually assured destruction (MADness) and a complete undermining of the 'Gospel of Love' based on cooperativity and mutually assured flourishment (MAFness).
So I would think that 'The Idea of the World' makes a basic error in mistaking Actuality for Reality and thus making the claim that Realism is undermined by this form of Idealism. In fact, it is not at all. It is all a matter of being sure to understand what is Real and what is Actual. I think this distinction is of fundamental significance, and it actually emerges clearly in Peirce's philosophical system, in Scholastic Realism and in triadic semiotics; Scholastic Realism can actually be understood in the context of Semiotics as Semiotic Realism, which realizes that the main issue with regard to experience is its interpretation in terms of its significance, its meaning. This is a dynamic function of consciousness. And, the final thing about this is that this process of interpretation, which can be called 'semiosis', or the action of signs, or 'signification', is NOT just limited to living organisms but goes ALL THE WAY DOWN the scale to the fully inanimate. And in fact, one can say that it is the capacity for semiosis that is the fundamental characteristic of consciousness, that there is 'Physiosemiosis' ( see: https://www.pdcnet.org/signsystems/cont ... _0027_0047 and https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals ... e-p375.xml ) involving inanimate matter, 'Phytosemiosis' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytosemiotics ) involving the plant form of living organism, Zoosemiosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosemiotics ) involving the animal form of living organism and Anthroposemiosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_communication ) involving the human being.
( As an aside: It is interesting to speculate regarding the significance of virosemiotics in the current global situation... for example, see: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-134 regarding a semiotic perspective regarding what this current moment in global history may be attempting to communicate )