[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Ham Priday]

Hey there, John --



> It's been a busy season and sorry for the tardiness in reply.  Hopefully
> I'll make up for it with some careful consideration as opposed to my
> usual slap-dash, off-the-hip response.

That would be a commendable new year's resolution.
Following are my responses to your comments re: my definitions.

> I've got no problem with "standard definitions".  But of course,
> philosophy does require a somewhat more careful digging than
> we'll find in the dictionary so I'll try and do a little of that with you.
>
> Ham's dictionary says:
>
>> Realization: "the state of understanding or becoming aware (of value)"
>
> This is good, as far as it goes, but of course there's an awful lot more
> to the story in my book. For the realization of value IS our realization
> of reality.  How we "realize" patterns carved out of the whole are our
> conceptualizations with which we interpret and manipulate our world.
> Everything, in other words.

Yes, realization pretty much covers the gamut of existential reality.  It's 
a profound thought, isn't it?

Now, the word "experience" is needed to complete this epistemology.  I 
didn't define it because common definitions (of the verb) tend to be 
passive, falling short of my meaning.  "To learn by experience" or "to 
undergo experience", for example, imply that experience is 'affective' for 
the observer, whereas in my epistemology it is 'effective' or 'intentional', 
as in "creating the construct of which the observer is aware."  So, you see, 
I am forced to take liberties with experience because no other term connects 
objective phenomena to the cognizant subject -- not "realization", not 
"intellection", not even "reification".

>> Sensibility: "the capacity to realize or respond emotionally (to value)"
>
> I tie in "sensibility" to "sensation".  That is, a "percept" - something
> that coincides with our nervous apparatus.  A noise we can hear with
> our ears, a sight we can view with our eyes.  These are what I consider
> "sensible".  Those patterns which coincide with our neural being.

Sensibility and sensation certainly have the same "sense" base.  Again, 
John, I prefer to use "sensibility" for the general state of 
awareness--including the capacity for realization, reserving "sensation" for 
proprioceptive (neural receptive) data having to do with the five senses, 
plus the feeling of pain, hunger, physiological trauma, and the like.  This 
preference is purely for reasons of clarity and consistency in articulating 
my epistemology.

>> Conceptualization: "to intellectualize a concept or interpret realization
>> structurally"
>
> I take "concept" as one step below "intellectualization", if you don't
> mind.  Intellectualization is the thinking about concepts - the use of 
> them
> in further reflection and logical manipulation.  A pure conceptualization 
> is
> just a realization of a distinct pattern - the realization occurring 
> through
> correspondence with our neural receptivity.  Thus even a plant has a
> sort of concept of "light" even though only man thinks about such things
> more deeply.

I quarrel only with your suggestion that plants "conceptualize" or 
"realize".  Living organisms lacking cerebro-neural systems have no 
conscious means to process or integrate data conceptually.

>> Cognizance: "to notice or give attention to something"
>
> Cognizance then is intellectual.  It's what humans do, as
> opposed to what plants do.

That's my considered opinion, yes.

>> Recognition: "acknowledgment; especially to know or feel
>> that something relates to what has been encountered before"
>
> Right.  RE-cognizance.  A further development of the intellect.

>> Actualization: "to make or become actual or existentially real"
>
> Well even with an extended opportunity to think this through, I'm
> not sure about "making real".  It seems to me that realization IS
> actualization and that's all there is to it.  Plain and simple.

The only problem I see with that premise concerns the process of abstraction 
or induction.  For example, you have deduced that plants have a concept of 
light, probably from the fact that they bend toward it.  While this may be 
true in your reality, it doesn't make a plant's conception real or actual. 
Has the child who discovers gifts under the tree on Christmas day 
"actualized" Santa Claus?

> Well, as you say, these semantic differences need not be complete
> blockages.  But I think you need to explain how non-intellectual
> animals can have apparent realizations and I think you need to
> explain how experiential objectification occurs with non-physical
> objects, just to make things more clear between us.

I didn't say that animals are not capable of realizing, just that they don't 
conceptualize. Their "values" (if we can call instinctual behavior "value 
responses") involve food sources, predators, herd leaders, mating rituals, 
and other activities that support their survival.  Do animals create or 
actualize the universe?  Are they capable of intellectualizing the 
principles of nature or appreciating a work of art?  I rather doubt it.
And kindly explain what you mean by "objectification occurs with 
non-physical objects".  (I'm unaware of any object that isn't physical.)

> So you don't view actualization as "automatic".  I know you're a
> big fan of Ayn Rand, and according to my recent readings on her
> philosophy, this is a BIG point of her philosophy.  But also,
> according to my reading, this is a BIG problem with her philosophy,
> so I think you're wise to avoid it.

What I said back on December 21 was that "we actualize our world of 
differentiated beingness in accordance with our value sensibilities, whether 
this invokes "intentionality" or is "automatic".  By way of clarification, 
the value-sensibility is "automatic"; the actualization is "intentional". 
(I don't recall "automatic" being a big point of Rand's Objectivism.)

> 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 suspect what is missing in my exposition is that fact that the laws of 
nature and the order of the universe which bind us to existential reality 
are not our creation.  Like time and space, these universal attributes 
represent the "intelligent design" of the primary source.  The human will 
cannot violate the system in which it participates; otherwise our reality 
would be merely a product of our imagination (i.e., solipsism) and 
interpersonal communication would be impossible.  This is why I hesitate to 
use the word "intention" in the context of actualization.  The bottom line 
is: Essence is the Creator.  What we as the created agents actualize must 
relate to the "system" as universally experienced.   (You seem to be 
alluding to this restriction in your next paragraph)

> "Creation process" seems to me to say it all, Ham.  You can't have
> just one entity in a process.  There must be, as Wallace says,
> entanglement between.  I agree the cognizant subject plays an active
> role in the process, yes.  But this leaves a lot of explaining, still to 
> do.
> For instance, how much do the things being realized constrain the
> cognizer?  It's not, as you say, "automatic" so the creative function
 > in this process is much deeper than we realize.

[Ham, previously]:
>> 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?

[John]:
> Well, both perhaps.  But I would say that the conceptualization of
> reality is an ongoing and infinite process.  We never conceptualize it 
> all.
> But I place no significance on that which is unrealizable, and a great 
> deal
> of significance on that which hasn't been realized *yet*.

Just don't expect to realize the unrealizable anytime soon, John.  Remember 
my axiom: Access to absolute knowledge is incommensurate with individual 
freedom.

It seems we're on the same page philosophically, John, and I look forward to 
further productive dialogue.  (With Horse's approval, of course.)

Kindest regards and best wishes for the new year,
Ham