[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Joseph Maurer]

On Wed 25 Jan 2006 2:03 PM Scott writes to Ian

Scott:
Right on the speculation, which is why I'm not sure we should say that
"reality, ... all evolve from these small beginnings" since I do not want to
claim that our respective models are "first causes". Rather they are more
like "the simplest form our limited intellects can come up with that do
justice to the reality we seem to be in." First logical principles, maybe.

Anyway, my model differs from yours in that I do not propose <no-thing> or
<difference> as two. That is, I consider them a contradictory identity, by
which and from which there is needed a third term (such as consciousness,
value, or intellect). This was hinted at in ZMM, when Phaedrus first said
that Quality was "between" subject and object. But he later changed this to
being "prior" to S and O. In this I think he took a wrong step. Shifting
from S and O to a more generic contradictory idenity, like <no-thing> and
<difference>, my model says that Quality causes/is caused by CI. Which is to 
say that my logic is inherently trinitarian. One cannot remove one or two
pieces. One must have three, which are one. (Don't take this as a plug for
the Christian Trinity, since I don't know how my three pieces match up -- if
they do at all -- to Father, Son, and Spirit. But it is the case that both
require trinitarian logic.)

Hence, what I object to in your model is that one can see each piece of your
triplet as an entity. I would say that the <something> is not other than
awareness of the interplay between <no-thing> and <difference>, and the
interplay is not other than awareness (and one can substitute 'value' or
'intellect' for awareness). Or I might say that <no-thing> is meaningless
(value-less) without <difference>, and <difference> is meaningless without
<no-thing>, and both are meaningless without awareness.

Hi Scott, Ian and All,

A wonderful exchange! Thanks!

IMO Speculation is useful. S=Conscious, O=Mechanical. Conscious evolution is 
enlightenment, there is more on the table so to speak. All have an equal 
right to enlightenment, and freedom is necessary. When S/O speaks in the 
same sentence confusion is confounding.

IMO Conscious evolution follows from a consideration that there is nothing 
new under the sun. Conscious evolution is a remembering. Again a need for 
freedom!

Mechanical evolution is cosmic evolution. An individual sentient cannot 
withstand the force of cosmic evolution, e. g., the tsunami. The tsunami was 
not a moral event. Laws do not apply to cosmic evolution. Chaos reigns. 
Chaos is beyond me. The law of gravity makes the cosmos more understandable.

IMO A law of three and a law of seven help make understandable the 
manifestation of an individual (three) and the order of evolution, morality 
(seven). An individual sentient is both S/O. My awareness is both mechanical 
and conscious. A choice of actions between enlightenment (conscious), and 
complex (mechanical), is a learning experience. The MOQ is both. The Good!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Metaphor - I mean it when I (often) say "it's metaphors all the way
> down", right down to the micro-first-cause level - but that is of
> course from our macro perspective of having an evolved intellect. (I
> have a bone to pick with Baggini on that point too - we need to
> distinguish live metaphors from dead ones - but that's for another
> day) So at the first-cause event there is no metaphor (though we can
> only ever have a metaphorical "view" of it). In your Peician model
> there is no "interpretant" I guess, no evloved intellect in my model.
> So ...
>
> Scott:
> Right. In my model, the "first-cause" *is* metaphor (semiosis), not just
> metaphorically viewed. (When I said that "awareness is not a metaphor" I
> meant that because it *is* metaphor, it is not a metaphor for *something
> else* -- though of course the word 'awareness' is a dead metaphor.)
>
> Ian said:
> First-cause, Significance ?
> (my triplets are not Peircian Tryads)
> The first difference looks like this.
>
> <no-thing><difference><some-thing>
>
> I'd call that a triplet, you call it a dyad.
> What's in a name ? If this really is "first-cause" then there are no
> other resources to add to my argument - no third "object", just this
> triplet. So ..
>
> Q1- What is "aware" of that difference ?
> A1 - only the triplet itself.
>
> Scott:
> I'm not averse to saying that what is aware of the triplet is the triplet
> itself, but argue that that is what makes the triplet a Peircean triad. Or 
> I
> could go from your triplet and ask: what is that <difference> if not
> awareneness of the difference between <some-thing> and <no-thing>. More
> below.
>
> Ian said:
> Q2 - What makes this difference "significant" ?
> A2 - only the triplet, there is nothing else to need to distinguish it 
> from
>
> Scott:
> But there is distinguishing within it (the distinction between no-thing 
> and
> difference to produce a some-thing), and that is what makes it 
> significant.
> So as I see it you already have semiosis.
>
> Q3 - What does it take to be "aware of this significant difference" ?
> A3 - nothing more than the triplet, see A2. Intellect is needed to
> evolve pattern recognition skills, etc, only when there are many
> difference triplets to distinguish between.
>
> Scott:
> This, I would agree, amounts to our differing on how we want to use
> 'intellect'. The argument would then proceed based on which usage is more
> fruitful for some purpose or other.
>
> Ian said:
> Reality, awareness, triplets (quality), intellect all evolve from
> these small beginnings. (You do of course realise I'm being
> speculative - as we've both already agreed any metaphysics has a hole
> in it at this point, that we can only plug with speculation that is
> consistent with the rest of our model.)
>
> Scott:
> Right on the speculation, which is why I'm not sure we should say that
> "reality, ... all evolve from these small beginnings" since I do not want 
> to
> claim that our respective models are "first causes". Rather they are more
> like "the simplest form our limited intellects can come up with that do
> justice to the reality we seem to be in." First logical principles, maybe.
>
> Anyway, my model differs from yours in that I do not propose <no-thing> or
> <difference> as two. That is, I consider them a contradictory identity, by
> which and from which there is needed a third term (such as consciousness,
> value, or intellect). This was hinted at in ZMM, when Phaedrus first said
> that Quality was "between" subject and object. But he later changed this 
> to
> being "prior" to S and O. In this I think he took a wrong step. Shifting
> from S and O to a more generic contradictory idenity, like <no-thing> and
> <difference>, my model says that Quality causes/is caused by CI. Which is 
> to
> say that my logic is inherently trinitarian. One cannot remove one or two
> pieces. One must have three, which are one. (Don't take this as a plug for
> the Christian Trinity, since I don't know how my three pieces match up --  
> if
> they do at all -- to Father, Son, and Spirit. But it is the case that both
> require trinitarian logic.)
>
> Hence, what I object to in your model is that one can see each piece of 
> your
> triplet as an entity. I would say that the <something> is not other than
> awareness of the interplay between <no-thing> and <difference>, and the
> interplay is not other than awareness (and one can substitute 'value' or
> 'intellect' for awareness). Or I might say that <no-thing> is meaningless
> (value-less) without <difference>, and <difference> is meaningless without
> <no-thing>, and both are meaningless without awareness.
>
> - Scott
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/