[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[John Carl]

Greetings Ham,  What relief you offer!  I will snip away the areas where I
see agreement between us, and focus on those issues of substantiatve
disagreement.  First off:

Ham:

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.
>
>
John:

"Conscious integration of conceptual data" is what humans do.  But isn't it
possible that "unconsciously", other life forms integrate the "data" of
their experience?  Plants certainly integrate light into their being, and
here "conceptually" just means to me, that part of their experience which is
carved out from the whole and used to make sugars.  A key semantic quibble,
imo.




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?
>
>

John:  MY reality Ham?  I assure you that plants respond to light in your
reality also.  Such responsiveness lies at the base of all life on the
planet.  Whatever we call it, its most certainly real and actual.  Plants
actualizing light is one of the best examples I can think of for
"actualization" as I see it.

Santa Claus is also real - as a concept.    Santa Claus isn't so much
actualized by the child, tho, as the parents.  Xmas is all about the
actualization of the Santa Claus concept in the lives of our children.  Why
do we parents do this?  Because it seems good to do and has been done to
us.  We just pass along the actualized conceptualizations of our forbears.
Happy Xmas, kids.  I got you the actualized conceptualizations of our
forbears this year.

Wheee!


Ham:


> 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.
>

John:

I believe this is a crucial point of difference, one that Lanza makes  in
his Biocentrism model - realization is actualization and realization occurs
in all animal consciousness.  Intellectualization is different.  Only humans
intellectualize.  Realizing the difference between realization
(conceptualization) and intellectualization is probably our key difference
at this point.


Ham:



> And kindly explain what you mean by "objectification occurs with
> non-physical objects".  (I'm unaware of any object that isn't physical.)
>
>
John:

Santa Claus, for instance.  The Theory of Gravity,  for another.  "Ghosts",
Pirsig called them.  They are primarily mental objects as opposed to
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.
>>
>
>

Ham:



> 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.)
>
>
John:

I believe that particular point is more finely drawn in Leonard Peikoff's
explication of Rand's Objectivism than with Rand herself, but we'll leave
that aside for the moment and address your distinction in your
clarification.  For I do differ with you on value-sensibility being
automatic.  How could something be viewed as automatic, when it takes so
much training and cultural programming in the first place?  Do you think
umpteenth Inuit definitions of snow come about "automatically"?  And why
then,  do warm-climate descendants fail of making such distinctions?  Surely
if the value-sensibility of the snow-men was merely automatic, it would
arise in any interactions with any humans.  I'd say value-sensibility arises
out of a process that has elements of intentionality (caring enough to look
closer) AND automatic reactionism (Jumping off hot stoves).
Value-sensibility then, arises narrative fashion out of the context of an
organism's relationship with its environment.  A Codependent arising that
combines both intentionality and automatic responsiveness in all aspects.

[John]:

 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*.
>>
>
>
Ham:



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

You missed my key caveat!  The crucial "yet".  "Unrealized yet", is entirely
different from "unrealizable".  That which is unrealize-able, is
pragmatically non-existent.  I seriously doubt your axiom, also.  I'd say it
just the opposite of you - individual freedom is impossible without access
to absolute knowing.  However, 'access to" is a far, far cry from
"attainment of".  Keep that distinction in mind, and we'll get along just
fine.

Ham:


> 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
>
>
In real life, horses don't offer me much trouble - it's people that buck me
off.

Best to you and yours, Ham.

John