Hi dmb, I am interested in learning more about this preselection process which seems to happen before intellectual or emotional awareness, if I read you post correctly below. How does Empiricism fit into this process? There seems to be a gap there, at least for me. How does determinism figure into this preselection process? Where does the preselection process come from? How is it converted to a postselection process?
My understanding is that the preselection process and the postselection process are the same thing and only differ in magnitude. The conversion of awareness to thoughts and then words is a reductive process, it does not create a reality all of its own, since we do not have the Power to create our own reality. Such reality is provided to us, in the form of Quality. Our senses and consequent reduction into meaningful apparitions is a simplifying technique, not a dissociative technique. The final simplification is the creation of languages. Thanks, Mark On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:13 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Arlo said to Mark: > > This is basically the same question Phaedrus asked himself about the origins > of hypotheses, and led him towards Poincare and Einstein. Although he > doesn't mention them, both Eco and Peirce posit very similar answers, as does > Nietzsche (and Dewey, and Northrop and James). While their analogies differ, > the "flash of light" is often painted as a sudden, unexpected, > pre-intellectual moment of aesthetic awareness. ...In all cases (I think) > it's a question of 'creativity', or to use Campbell's word "the birth of > something new". > > > > dmb says: > Poincare thought that of all the possible options the most interesting and > beautiful mathematical solutions were pre-selected by an unconscious aspect > he called "the subliminal self" and Phaedrus saw his own notion of Quality in > this. The following passage can be found a few pages from the end of chapter > 22 of ZAMM... > > "Poincaré then hypothesized that this selection is made by what he called the > "subliminal self," an entity that corresponds exactly with what Phædrus > called preintellectual awareness. The subliminal self, Poincaré said, looks > at a large number of solutions to a problem, but only the interesting ones > break into the domain of consciousness. Mathematical solutions are selected > by the subliminal self on the basis of "mathematical beauty," of the harmony > of numbers and forms, of geometric elegance. "This is a true esthetic feeling > which all mathematicians know," Poincaré said, "but of which the profane are > so ignorant as often to be tempted to smile." But it is this harmony, this > beauty, that is at the center of it all. > > Poincaré made it clear that he was not speaking of romantic beauty, the > beauty of appearances which strikes the senses. He meant classic beauty, > which comes from the harmonious order of the parts, and which a pure > intelligence can grasp, which gives structure to romantic beauty and without > which life would be only vague and fleeting, a dream from which one could not > distinguish one's dreams because there would be no basis for making the > distinction. It is the quest of this special classic beauty, the sense of > harmony of the cosmos, which makes us choose the facts most fitting to > contribute to this harmony.It is not the facts but the relation of things > that results in the universal harmony that is the sole objective reality. > > What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live is that this > world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through the communications > that we have with other men we receive from them ready-made harmonious > reasonings. We know that these reasonings do not come from us and at the same > time we recognize in them, because of their harmony, the work of reasonable > beings like ourselves. And as these reasonings appear to fit the world of our > sensations, we think we may infer that these reasonable beings have seen the > same thing as we; thus it is that we know we haven't been dreaming. It is > this harmony, this quality if you will, that is the sole basis for the only > reality we can ever know. > > Poincaré's contemporaries refused to acknowledge that facts are preselected > because they thought that to do so would destroy the validity of scientific > method. They presumed that "preselected facts" meant that truth is "whatever > you like" and called his ideas conventionalism. They vigorously ignored the > truth that their own "principle of objectivity" is not itself an observable > fact...and therefore by their own criteria should be put in a state of > suspended animation. > > They felt they had to do this because if they didn't, the entire philosophic > underpinning of science would collapse. Poincaré didn't offer any resolutions > of this quandary. He didn't go far enough into the metaphysical implications > of what he was saying to arrive at the solution. What he neglected to say was > that the selection of facts before you "observe" them is "whatever you like" > only in a dualistic, subject-object metaphysical system! When Quality enters > the picture as a third metaphysical entity, the preselection of facts is no > longer arbitrary. The preselection of facts is not based on subjective, > capricious "whatever you like" but on Quality, which is reality itself. Thus > the quandary vanishes. > > [dmb interjects: the non-arbitrary, non-subjective, non-capricious > preselection of facts is also an argument against relativism.] > > Poincaré had been working on a puzzle of his own. His judgment that the > scientist selects facts, hypotheses and axioms on the basis of harmony, also > left the rough serrated edge of a puzzle incomplete. To leave the impression > in the scientific world that the source of all scientific reality is merely a > subjective, capricious harmony is to solve problems of epistemology while > leaving an unfinished edge at the border of metaphysics that makes the > epistemology unacceptable. > > But we know from Phædrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincaré talked about > is not subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and exists in an > anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is the force that > opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and > mathematical thought which destroys capriciousness, and without which no > scientific thought can proceed. What brought tears of recognition to my eyes > was the discovery that these unfinished edges match perfectly in a kind of > harmony that both Phædrus and Poincaré talked about, to produce a complete > structure of thought capable of uniting the separate languages of Science and > Art into one." > > dmb says: > You'll find this same assertion about Quality's role in the cutting edge of > science at the end of Lila's chapter 29, immediately following the > explanations about radical empiricism. > Thanks,dmb > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
