The meaning of subjectivity and the importance of self (1p)
Roger Clough
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a "self"
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is the raw material
without an observer. The impersonal, scientific version.
This is just "stuff" and it has no meaning
by itself. Peirce called it Firstness.
b) a subjective account of the material, which
is the meaning of the "stuff". It is the objective
material filtered through an individual's consciousness.
I think that is somehow related to 1p. It is
the "stuff" as experienced, the meaning of the stuff.
From a particular point of view, such as an individual
monad would perceive.
Secondness is the meaning of the experience to the individual,
or Firstness from a particular point of view.
Thirdness is Secondness expressed to others.
I think that looking at the raw stuff without filtering
it through an individual's "eyes"-- the objective account--
will not completely tell you how well that raw account
emulates life. You need to 1p filter it to get its meaning.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
Bruno Marchal
On 02 Oct 2012, at 11:27, Roger Clough wrote:
> Bruno and all,
>
> I have not infrequently brought up the need for a "self"
> in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
> in your models ?
>
> There are two ways of looking at something:
>
> a) the objective material, which is the raw material
> without an observer. The impersonal, scientific version.
> This is just "stuff" and it has no meaning
> by itself. Peirce called it Firstness.
not part of the being. It is the shadow of a vaster reality only.
>
> b) a subjective account of the material, which
> is the meaning of the "stuff".
is only a part of what a person is.
> It is the objective
> material filtered through an individual's consciousness.
> I think that is somehow related to 1p.
> It is
> the "stuff" as experienced, the meaning of the stuff.
> From a particular point of view, such as an individual
> monad would perceive.
generalized person.
>
> Secondness is the meaning of the experience to the individual,
> or Firstness from a particular point of view.
>
> Thirdness is Secondness expressed to others.
>
>
> I think that looking at the raw stuff without filtering
> it through an individual's "eyes"-- the objective account--
> will not completely tell you how well that raw account
> emulates life. You need to 1p filter it to get its meaning.
video game, except that most spaceship video game are only some years
old, the moon and stars are basically as old as the physical universe.
But they are not made of stuff, and comp is only in its infancy, so
that it can still take time before we really apprehend that stuffy
aspect.
With comp (assuming no flaws, etc.) things goes like this (roughly
speaking)
ARITHMETICAL TRUTH ====> INTELLIGIBLE ARITHMETICAL REALM ===>
UNIVERSAL SOUL ====> PARTICULAR SOULS,
and then only ===> PARTICULAR DREAMS SHARING (physical realities).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal
Responses in ******
We're pretty much aligned.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-02, 07:56:43
Subject: Re: The meaning of subjectivity and the importance of self (1p)
On 02 Oct 2012, at 11:27, Roger Clough wrote:
> Bruno and all,
>
> I have not infrequently brought up the need for a "self"
> in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
> in your models ?
>
> There are two ways of looking at something:
>
> a) the objective material, which is the raw material
> without an observer. The impersonal, scientific version.
> This is just "stuff" and it has no meaning
> by itself. Peirce called it Firstness.
>
> b) a subjective account of the material, which
> is the meaning of the "stuff".
Hmm... I would say tha the stuff is only a part of the meaning, which
is only a part of what a person is.
*********Absolutely.
> It is the objective
> material filtered through an individual's consciousness.
> I think that is somehow related to 1p.
OK. (with objective = sharable by all persons)
********* good.
> It is
> the "stuff" as experienced, the meaning of the stuff.
> From a particular point of view, such as an individual
> monad would perceive.
Perhaps I should interpret your monad by person, simply. Or
generalized person.
************* No, each person has his own monad, his own corporeal body.
They're all different. Substances are all different.
A generalized person would be an idea or abstraction.
Ideas are all inhabitants of Platonia.
A particular person is an inhabitant of Contingia.
>
> Secondness is the meaning of the experience to the individual,
> or Firstness from a particular point of view.
>
> Thirdness is Secondness expressed to others.
>
>
> I think that looking at the raw stuff without filtering
> it through an individual's "eyes"-- the objective account--
> will not completely tell you how well that raw account
> emulates life. You need to 1p filter it to get its meaning.
No problem. With comp the moon is no more stuffy than a spaceship in a
video game, except that most spaceship video game are only some years
old, the moon and stars are basically as old as the physical universe.
But they are not made of stuff, and comp is only in its infancy, so
that it can still take time before we really apprehend that stuffy
aspect.
With comp (assuming no flaws, etc.) things goes like this (roughly
speaking)
ARITHMETICAL TRUTH ====> INTELLIGIBLE ARITHMETICAL REALM ===>
UNIVERSAL SOUL ====> PARTICULAR SOULS,
and then only ===> PARTICULAR DREAMS SHARING (physical realities).
**** Good. We're pretty much aligned.
This has been very helpful.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Craig Weinberg
Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a "self"
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is the raw material
without an observer. The impersonal, scientific version.
This is just "stuff" and it has no meaning
by itself. Peirce called it Firstness.
This is the problem in my view. Matter isn't firstness, it is secondness or really half - of - firstness turned inside out. There needs to be an experience which defines anything, as per Berkeley. You can't assume that 'without an observer' is one of the viable 'ways of looking at something', as you have disqualified all ways of looking at anything from the start. It's confusing because as individual human beings, we are nested layers deep in personal and impersonal interacting levels of perception and participation. It's not that our perception creates matter it is that our perception of matter comes to us indirectly through the experiences of our body. The raw material is experience, not observerless theoretical concepts. Experience is concretely real, ideas of objective conditions which exist outside of all possibility of experience is ultimately nonsense (although seductive nonsense).
b) a subjective account of the material, which
is the meaning of the "stuff". It is the objective
material filtered through an individual's consciousness.
I think that is somehow related to 1p. It is
the "stuff" as experienced, the meaning of the stuff.
From a particular point of view, such as an individual
monad would perceive.
Secondness is the meaning of the experience to the individual,
or Firstness from a particular point of view.
Thirdness is Secondness expressed to others.
I think that looking at the raw stuff without filtering
it through an individual's "eyes"-- the objective account--
will not completely tell you how well that raw account
emulates life. You need to 1p filter it to get its meaning.
The 1p is not the filter, it is the 3p which is a lowest common denominator filter that is inter-monadic and virtual. Our 1p is a filter of the multitude of sub-personal and super-personal 1p experiences associated with our cells, molecules, family, world, etc., but it is not a filter of 3p external realities. I'm with Bruno on this as far as matter not being primitive but I don't say that it doesn't exist, only that it existence isn't as primordial as insistence. Extension supervenes on intention, not the other way around.
Craig
Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg
My responses as !!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/3/2012
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-02, 15:54:01
Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a "self"
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is the raw material
without an observer. The impersonal, scientific version.
This is just "stuff" and it has no meaning
by itself. Peirce called it Firstness.
firstness turned inside out.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are correct, my statement is wrong.
per Berkeley. You can't assume that 'without an observer' is one of the viable 'ways of
looking at something', as you have disqualified all ways of looking at anything from the start.
It's confusing because as individual human beings, we are nested layers deep in personal and
impersonal interacting levels of perception and participation. It's not that our perception
creates matter it is that our perception of matter comes to us indirectly through the experiences of our body.
The raw material is experience, not observerless theoretical concepts. Experience is concretely real, ideas of
objective conditions which exist outside of all possibility of experience is ultimately nonsense (although seductive nonsense).
b) a subjective account of the material, which
is the meaning of the "stuff". It is the objective
material filtered through an individual's consciousness.
I think that is somehow related to 1p. It is
the "stuff" as experienced, the meaning of the stuff.
From a particular point of view, such as an individual
monad would perceive.
Secondness is the meaning of the experience to the individual,
or Firstness from a particular point of view.
Thirdness is Secondness expressed to others.
I think that looking at the raw stuff without filtering
it through an individual's "eyes"-- the objective account--
will not completely tell you how well that raw account
emulates life. You need to 1p filter it to get its meaning.
but it is not a filter of 3p external realities. I'm with Bruno on this as far as matter not being primitive but I don't say that it
doesn't exist, only that it existence isn't as primordial as insistence. Extension supervenes on intention, not the other way around.
Craig
Meaning means meaning to you individually. And of course insistence is more primordial, but I had forgotten
that you have to regurgitate how you interpreted something to others to make your interpretation useful.
So your 1p meaning is the true meaning as far as you are concerned, but it has to be converted to 3p
to be useful right then. On the other hand your 1p interpretation if expresssed mathematicallhy
(or digitally, such as your view of a bridge as slightly distorted) may still be useful within
the computation.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
"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.