[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

David M


DM said:
I am very familiar with Sheldrake, since about 1981,
you said  "agent/patient" distinction with regards to Sheldrake
and I wondered what this meant?

Scott:
Sorry -- I didn't mean to say that Sheldrake had something particular to say 
about an agent/patient relationship. I meant to say that (a) I don't know 
how or if an agent/patient relationship applies in biological intelligence, 
and (b) that Sheldrake has interesting things to say about biological 
intelligence.

DM said:
When it comes to distinguishing impressions from changes from signs
I wonder if there are such clear distinctions? Could be 3 phases of
a single process/event/experience.

Scott:
I disagree. Removing any one of the three components of a sign turns it into 
meaninglessness. Firsts never actually appear outside of a context (only in 
our thinking can we isolate a first). Seconds appear to us, but that is 
because we aren't aware of the semiotic process involved (appealing now to 
Barfield, that is because original participation has disappeared into our 
subconscious).

- Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> 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/
>
> 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/