[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ham,
Scott said:
> Semiosis is ubiquitous.  Consciousness is ubiquitous.
> Value is ubiquitous.  These are not three different substances,
> but three names (and there are others) of one (non-)thing.
> There is no distinct "fundamental" reality.
> There is no "source" distinct from what is.
> How much more explicit do I need to be?

Ham said:
You do not believe in a source of existence.

Scott:
Right. I think that essence and existence are a contradictory identity. 
Neither can be considered as the source of the other.

Ham said:
  Reality to you is a
"non-thing" that can be named variously Semiosis, Consciousness, or Value.

Scott:
No. I use the phrase "(non-)thing" to emphasize that "thingness" has 
connotations that I would rather avoid in this context. Reality, if you 
will, involves a contradictory identity of formlessness and form, with 
"thingness" being on the form side.

Ham continued:
But to do so would be nominalism, of course, which you claim is my approach
to philosophy.

Scott:
No, assigning names is not (philosophical) nominalism. I defined nominalism 
as the belief that concepts are strictly creations of the human mind. From 
your reaction to what I said about semiosis, it seems to me that you are a 
nominalist according to this definition. Was I wrong?

Ham continued:
Therefore, I would say that you have no reality.  You are a consummate
nihilist.

What more can I say, except that I hope you can find some value in it.

Thanks for making it so patently clear.

Scott:
You force what I say into your narrow categories, thus radically distorting 
it, and then pass judgment on it. Well, within those categories, that is all 
that you can say, but I think you should take a look at Matt K's most recent 
post on "Knockouts".

- Scott