[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Scott,

You said
"Right. In my model, the first-cause *is* metaphor (semiosis)"

I say
"And in *my model* too first-cause *is* metaphor."
It's all metaphors all the way down - in any world view.

But my model didn't pre-exist first-cause, and neither did yours, or
any other world view for that matter (by definition of first-cause).
First cause is the quality event.

Ian

On 1/25/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> 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/
>