--------
All these minds running around loose. We need a return to Russell and Carnap & Co. "Susan's mind" offers difficulty in construing: If "mind" has a content (ther than a romantic label for "brain," and I think it does, then it becomes iffy how one can distinguish "Susan's mind" from "Susan's Susan" as opposed to Charlie's Susan or Obama's Susan." But apparently the writers concerned here, including perhaps ravi himself, believe that seriously promiscuous proliferation of "Minds" is not only possible but a rational topic for discussion. The question then becomes whether it is possible to proceed from "Susan's Mind" and "Rachel's Mind" to the "The Mind of Kitchen Maids" or "The Mind of English Archers." And if we can do that, then we can dance merrily on among "The Influence of the Mind of Jonathan Apples on the Mind of Changes in Work Shirt Style." I undersand that the actual text of Ockham's razor hs never been located, which leaves room for speculation that it is misquoted, the correct text being "[Non]entities should not be proliferated." Period, because the "beyond necessity" seemsd redundant here. So is ravi's beard adequate defense against the razor in this case.
Let's worry the term "Mind" a bit more. If it has content, it is as a pointer to a process of great (perhaps infinite) complexity. The total sum* of endlessly changing relationships, inernal & external, which constitute Susan as her own history. (Some French [structuralist] anthropologist: Humanity does not _have_ a history; Humanity _is_ its history. This seems good for Susan and Susan's alleged "Mind" as well as for "Humanity."
[*One problem with such phrases as "The Reactionary Mindd" is that they generate a discussion for which not terminology exists: "Total sum" is clearly a false label for an endless process, but any suggested alternative label would, I suspect, be equally absurd. Absurd (static) entities genereate absurd terminology.]
How do we get from "Susan's Mind" (= the history which is susan") to The Mind of Kitchen Maids, from which conceivably we could then by some radical abstraction arrive at our Holy Grail of "The Lower Orders," "The Mind of the Lower Orders," and with a f inal breathless dash for the roses, "The Reactionary Mind" in the History oof Kitchen Maids.
The mind boggles.
Carrol
P.S. Perhaps of interest "the damp souls of house maids" (T. S. Eliot)