CRAIG: Cool Roger,
It mostly makes sense to me, except I don't understand why I. is associated
with objects and substance when it is feeling, perception, and first person
quale.
ROGER: It is not uncommon to find such objective/subjective dyslexia in the
literature.
This stuff is hard to get a hold of.
CRAIG: To me, thinking is just as much first person as feeling, and they both
are subjective qualia.
Thinking is a meta-quale of feeling (which is a meta-quale of
awareness>perception>sensation>sense)
ROGER: Actually I have yet to find a clear or useful definition of thinking
(how it works).
In fact Wittgenstein at one point said that he does not know what thinking
is (!).
But I believe you have to think if you compare objects across an equals
sign,
so comparison (a dyad) seems to me to be a basic type of thinking.
CRAIG: That puts the whole subjective enchilada as Firstness and leaves objects
and
substance to Secondness. This is Self-Body distinction. What you have is
like
Lower-Self/Higher- Self distinction but with objects kind of shoehorned in
there.
Once you see matter as a public extension and self as a private intention,
then
Thirdness arises as the spatiotemporal interaction of formation and
information.
ROGER: Yes, distinction is another form of basic thought. But that requires the
ability to compare.
CRAIG: That outlines one way of slicing the pizza. I don't know if you can see
this but here:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Xz8OmKGPEjE/UIL6EtVeBEI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/iBhuMxBj9oU/s1600/trio_sml_entropy.jpg
That gives a better idea of the syzygy effect of the big picture, how they
overlap in different ways and set each other off in a multi-sense way.
The Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness relate respectively to the respective
trios:
I. Sense, Motive
II. Matter, Energy,
III. Space, Time
ROGER: I could see it, but couldn't see how to interpret it, but's thats OK.
The categories, like Hegel's dialectic, seem to be a basic take on
existence,
So no doubt there are many approaches to defining them, yours included.
CRAIG: to get to morality, you have to look at the black and white:
IV. Signal (escalating significance), Entropy aka Ent ntr rop opy (attenuating
significance...
fragmentation and redundancy obstructs discernment capacities...
information entropy generates thermodynamic entropy through sense
participation)
I did a post on this today, but it's pretty intense:
http://s33light.org/post/33951454539
ROGER: I welcome your thoughts on this. But as for myself, I try to keep things
as simple as possible.
The truth is that actually I had a serior moment when I wrote "morality".
I should have recalled a better term, Ethics. That has to do with
law and doing, both typical of III.
CRAIG: Craig
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:18:50 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig
Thanks very much for your comments Craig. I still need to digest them.
Meanwhile, a flood of new ideas came to me and I just want to set them down.
There are no doubt mistakes, esp. with regard to subjective/objective.
The Peirce-Leibniz triads Ver.2
I Firstness object substance perception (quale) aesthetics beauty 1st person
feeling subjective
II Secondness sign monad thought logic truth 2nd person thinking subj/obj
III Thirdness interprant supreme monad expression morality goodness 3rd person
doing objective
It appears that Peirce's three categories match the Leibniz monadic structures
as follows:
I. = object = Leibniz substance = quale
II. Secondness = sign = monad representing that substance.
In Peirce, the sign is a word for the experience of that object .
In Leibniz, the monads are mental, which I think means subjective.
III. Thirdness = interprant (meaning of I and II ) = by the monad of monads.
In addition to this, Peirce says that his categories are "predicates of
predicates",
where the first predicate (dog) is extensive and the second predicate (brown)
is intensive.
then the overall object might be animal-->dog-->brown.
Leibniz says that a monad is a complete concept, meaning all of the possible
predicates.
I suggest that the first or extensive predicate (dog) is objective
and the second predicate (brown) is qualitative or subjective.
So that the object as per ceived is a quale or Firstness.
Roger Clough, [email protected]
10/18/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UzPBnSWqXdgJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
