[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Ham Priday]

Scott --

I haven't been following this discussion, but you've piqued my interest with
this brilliant bit of reasoning:

[Scott to Ian]:

> 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.

I don't know the logic behind Ian's model, but this one works for me.  It
'takes three to tango' with metaphysical reality.  What you are proposing is
a unitary subjective reality whose finite differentiation is caused by
nothingness.  That's also the ontology I've laid out in my thesis.  However,
I take exception to your assertion that Conscious Intellect (I presume
that's CI) is the cause.  The cause is the One referred to in your closing
sentence.

> 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.

John Sowa's essay on "Thirdness" begins with an analysis of Kantian logic
from which the triad concept comes:

"In every group, the number of categories is always the same,
namely, three. That is remarkable because elsewhere all _a
priori_ division of concepts must be by dichotomy. Furthermore,
the third category always arises from a combination (Verbindung)
of the second category with the first. Thus totality is plurality
considered as unity; limitation is reality combined with negation;
community is the causality of substances reciprocally determining
one another; finally, necessity is the existence that is given by
possibility itself. It must not be supposed, however, that the
third category is merely a derivative, and not a primary concept
of the pure understanding. For the combination of the first and
second categories in order to produce the third requires a special
act of the understanding, which is not identical with those which
produce the first and second."
         -- http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/onto-std/mailarchive/0162.html

Given that awareness is finitely limited subjective reality, and "no-thing"
is the negating factor that defines finitude, isn't Sowa's observation that
"limitation is reality combined with negation" another way of stating your
postulate that "awareness [is] the interplay between no-thing and
difference"?   If, as you say, no-thing and difference represent a
"contradictory identity" rather than "two", aren't we really describing a
dual-mode Reality in which negation is the primary differentiator?

Unlike you and Ian, "semiotic" sources have no value for me.  I maintain
that nothingness is the primary "cause" of physical existence, but that the
ultimate "source" is undivided Essence.  Nothingness and "somethingness"
defines the duality of finitude (physical existence), and awareness is
identified with nothingness.  I'll tentatively buy the proposition that
awareness is the differential "interplay" between not-other and other -- in
fact, I like it -- but I believe that this other must be the essential
source, that is, the One to which all this logic leads.

Where am I wrong, other than not being a semioticist?

And thanks for allowing me to butt in here.

Ham