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, rcl...@verizon.net 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 everyth...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UzPBnSWqXdgJ. 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.