[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

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