[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --


> I believe conceptualization and realization are epistemologically
> synonymous Ham, is my point.  The act of realization IS
> conceptualization at the most basic level.  When I recognize that
> a certain pattern of light is red, I'm realizing out of the whole
> matrix of sensation a particular pattern which becomes instantly
> a conceptualization of that color.  If I don't realize any 
> differentiation,
> then I don't form any conceptualization.  This might seem at first
> that I'm agreeing with you, that realization comes first, but any
> realization is immediately and totally a conceptualization OF that
> realization so the two terms refer to the exact same mental process.

While this is largely a matter of semantic overlap, it's important that we 
agree on the concept that our words are describing.  So, in the interest of 
clarity and consistency and with help from Merriam-Webster's, here is how I 
define and use these terms:

Realization: "the state of understanding or becoming aware (of value)"
Sensibility: "the capacity to realize or respond emotionally (to value)"
Conceptualization: "to intellectualize a concept or interpret realization 
structurally"
Cognizance: "to notice or give attention to something"
Recognition: "acknowledgment; especially to know or feel that something 
relates to what has been encountered before"
Actualization: "to make or become actual or existentially real"

Thus, I would express cognizance of "differentiation" (in your prismatic 
example above) as "recognition" (of a pattern) rather than "realization" or 
"conceptualization" (of a color).  I would also distinguish the concept 
formed from a realization as "intellectual", rather than equate realization 
with conceptualization.  Incidentally, the only terms in this list whose 
common meanings have special significance to my ontology are Sensibility and 
Actualization.  The former relates specifically to Value-realization, the 
latter to experiential objectification.

> Well I've got enough on my mental plate at the moment to play with,
> I'll have to hold off on "actualization" for a moment as I can only digest
> so much at a time.  Actualization seems to me to imply intention, whereas
> realization occurs more or less automatically - that is, our 
> neural-sensory
> apparatus is conducive to certain realizations out of our existential 
> matrix.
> Those things that match up to our senses, become conceptualized naturally.

If I'm not straining your mental faculties too much, actualization (as in 
objectivizing) does imply intention.  One might say that what one 
objectivizes represents the realized value that he "wills to actualize" as 
being.  The point I'm trying to make here is that we actualize our world of 
differentiated beingness in accordance with our value sensibilities. 
Whether this invokes "intentionality" or is "automatic", that man is the 
co-creator of the universe is a major premise of my ontology.

> Um, I'm going to quibble a bit here.  I believe only humans have intellect
> at their disposal, but almost all living beings and even plants recognize
> the difference between light and dark, or hot and cold for that matter and
> respond accordingly.  I haven't thought much yet about the way I'm using
> "concept" and what I've heard as a "percept" but that seems closer to what
> I mean - a "perception" of the difference between night and day as opposed
> to a "precept" which I agree IS a purely intellectual building block of
> knowledge.  Thus, the difference between night and day is a percept, and
> humans actualize this by precept.

I am putting you to the test with this premise, John.  Thus far you've been 
skirting the issue, expressing your "like" or displacency for this concept. 
Now is the time to challenge me with your objections.  Pirsig is on record 
as asserting that Quality "patterns" existence at the static level.  Do you 
accept that ontogeny, or do you feel, as I do, that the cognizant subject 
plays an active role in the creation process?
> I see your point about reaching for a conception.  In a sense, this 
> obviates
> my idea that what is not conceptualized is not real because if its not 
> real,
> then what are we reaching for?  Unreality?  So perhaps my understanding of
> your "unrealized" as "unrealizable" is not correct.  You seem here, with
> your "we DO reach for" to imply a a realizable conception that we have 
> [not]
> realized *yet*. If so, then I see I'm going to have to bat this around a 
> bit
> more in my brain.
>
> I agree!  Mostly.  I agree with the part about philosophical concepts 
> being
> more than words, in fact, I think I've been saying the same thing.  But 
> what
> I averred was that that which is unrealized doesn't exist.  As I say we 
> can
> have concepts for which we have no words, but I must insist that for which
> we cannot conceptualize (realize) cannot be said to be real.  I take
> "unrealized" in the sense you offer, to mean "unrealizable" as well.

If everything that is "real" is conceptualized, existential reality is a 
concept and there is no "unreality".  I Take it this is what you've 
concluded.  My question to you, then, is: Does existence constitute all 
there is to reality?  Is there a "metaphysical reality" that transcends 
existence and cannot be (or at least hasn't yet been) conceptualized?

Or, do you still argue from your pragmatic stance that "it doesn't really 
matter"?

Essentially pressing,
Ham