[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

David M,

DM asked:
What does Sheldrake say?

Scott: Here's a good place to start: 
http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic_intro.html

DM said:
Again I was not thinking about the re-action
to heat, i.e. move, rather that if the heat is high
we burn. We are conscious of this causality but unable
to interpret away the unavoidable burning. And at a
less strong level there is a causal 'happening' to all
perception is there not? i.e. we absorb light and that
changes our receptors. Interpretation is an addition
to some extent to the interaction, or do you think not?

Scott:
I guess I'm not following. Try this: In Peirce's phenomenology there are 
firsts, seconds, and thirds. A first is the raw sensation of heat (i.e., a 
quale). A second would be the absorption of light with the resulting change 
in our receptors. A third is treating the heat as sign (the heat indicates 
danger to the body). What I am saying (whether Peirce would agree I'm not 
sure) is that there are only thirds -- that only with thirds is there 
meaning (value). Firsts and seconds are incomplete thirds, as it were, where 
the additional components are not being noticed.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> David M,
>
> "You" are not consciously interpreting/reacting to the heat. But your body
> is. This is why I consider the hot stove example to be of no value in re
> DQ.
> That your body gets you off the stove prior to one's thinking about the
> incident is the body's SQ/DQ interaction, while our thinking is a
> different
> SQ/DQ interaction. So I would say that there is agency involved, which we
> call instinct. (Note that I did not say "the body is an agent". I do not
> know what qualifies as an agent on the biological level, or even if
> "agent/patient" is an appropriate distinction to make, but I think
> Sheldrake
> has interesting things to say in this regard.)
>
> - Scott
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question
>
>
> Scott
>
> I almost agree. But I would add that you are focussing
> on the re-action of one pattern to another, but there is
> also an action prior to re-action. When I experience heat
> there is a non-interpretative aspect to this, an exchange of
> energy that is changing me without any agency involved.
> Such is our embodiment. Agree?
>
> DM
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question
>
>
>> David M,
>>
>> We can only experience a quality like sweetness if we are embedded within
>> a
>> system of tastes. That is, there is a biological language of tastes, and
>> therefore the particular taste has meaning. Now when you suggest that
>> "experience prior to being able to construct objects through thinking as
>> unconscious valuation" I agree, as long as one understands "unconscious"
>> as
>> referring to being outside normal human awareness. I would say that the
>> body
>> has a separate consciousness, since otherwise, the word 'valuation' is
>> meaningless. It should also be noted that the object construction you
>> mention is also unconscious to the normal awake human. That is, as far as
>> we
>> are normally aware, we immediately see a tree, and are unaware of piecing
>> together the colors and shapes. BTW, the first stage (picking out the
>> particular taste or color in a system of colors) Barfield calls
>> "sensing",
>> and the second stage "figuration".  Peirce considers the second stage to
>> be
>> a form of abduction (hypothesis formation), which I find interesting. In
>> any
>> case, I consider them both to be semiotic processes.
>>
>> - Scott
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question
>>
>>
>> Scott said:
>>
>> there is value involved, and that
>>> implies triadic relations, not dyadic.
>>
>> DM: Is that right? Do we not experience a quality first, say a pleasant
>> sweeetness, and so we have whole undivided value. Only if we
>> go on to construct an object from a number of experiences do
>> we form any dualism of an object causing these experiences in a
>> subject. What we come to objectify as treacle, first appeared to
>> us as fragments of experience, certain colours, certain feels of
>> stickiness, a smell, and when we got it in our mouths a certain taste.
>> By separation from other experiences and consruction into a pattern
>> we create objects to form a dualism consisting of objects that we are
>> subjected to. Of course this ability to divide and construct is
>> inseparable
>> from thinking and consciousness. Perhaps we should see experience
>> prior to being able to construct objects through thinking as unconscious
>> valuation.
>>
>> 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/
>
> 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/