Hi Craig Weinberg  

Good.  But I think either you have to be more specific
about your definitions or else specify more broadly,
like in terms of categories. 

Also, your definition of thought is a good step, but
I myself  want to know how thinking is done.
What is thinking ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/22/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-21, 10:06:21 
Subject: Re: Re: The Peirce-Leibniz triads Ver. 2 




On Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:19:42 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 

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. 


It can be, yeah, although my model makes it really easy. Subject and object are 
poles on a continuum, with private, proprietary, solipsistic, trans-rational 
sense qualities on the East (Orienting) end and public, generic, nihilistic, 
logical realism quantities on the Western end. In the center region between the 
two poles, subjectivity and objectivity are clearly discernible as inner and 
outer body/world perception (I call this the mundane fold as it is like a 
crease which acts as a barrier). In the edge region, the East and West actually 
meet in the sort of transcendental oblivion of subjective union with the 
ultimate (nirvana, satori, enlightenment, etc) 



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. 


A think a comparison is a basic type of everything. As luck would have it, I 
just posted this definition for what a thought is yesterday: 


What exactly is a thought? 
A thought is a private, personal, directly participatory narrative subjective 
experience which is typically expressed in a verbal-gestural sense modality (as 
words or feelings easily converted to words by an agency of proprietary 
interior voice). Thoughts can be discerned from images, awareness, and 
perception by their potential purposefulness; they serve as the seeds for 
public action. Generally public actions which are understood to be voluntary 
are assumed to be the consequence of private thoughts. Behaviors which are 
?houghtless? are deemed to be unconscious, subconscious, accidental, or 
socially impaired. 

  


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. 


First you have to be able to distinguish things before you can compare them, 
otherwise what would you be comparing?  


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.     

In my view morality and ethics are manifestation of IV. It is distinct from law 
because it is not a scripted assumption of compliance, it is an internalized 
sensitivity to social considerations which drives law from above, rather than a 
consequence of the existence of a-signifying behavioral constraints. This is 
actually pretty important as it reveals why COMP is wrong and AGI will fail 
without biology. 

Craig 

--  
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/-/q5LoPXj18XMJ. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to