[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Then Scott, just like my "proto-consciousness" I kind of agree with you ...

IF ...

... this "first-cause" metaphor could be seen as "proto-metaphor".

ie It's the germ of metaphors - very simplest - needing only the
simplest of "proto-consciousness" to interpret it's semantics - not
necessarily highly evolved humans. For me thses things all co-evolve
from the same first existence of "difference" - the tinyiest hole in
my (pragmatic) metaphysics.

My hole's tinier than yours :-)

(I remember I chickened out of a better definition of "proto", and I
do agree "first-cause" is entirely metaphorical, and not an absolute
concept anyway - but I'm OK if we keep it in scare quotes.)

My point was to agree and move on.
What was yours ?

Ian

On 2/3/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Scott said
> "Right. In my model, the first-cause *is* metaphor (semiosis)"
>
> Ian said
> "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.
>
> Scott:
> You left out my modification to what I said, namely "... not just
> metaphorically viewed". Which is to say that my model is metaphorical (as
> are all), but what I model in my model is also metaphor. That is, I don't
> think you would agree with me when I say that there is metaphor in the
> absence of people. No? You do say that -- in the absence of people -- there
> is information, which of course I agree with, but isn't our difference that
> in my model, information implies an interpretant (which gets consciously
> "carried across", that is, metaphor-ed) while in yours there is sometimes an
> interpretant and sometimes not?
>
> (And, I would like to junk the phrase "first-cause", for the same reason I
> would like to junk the idea that an ultimate Source is necessary to any
> metaphysics, but that's a somewhat separate issue.).
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
> >
> 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/
>
> 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/
>