Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 10:06:58 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Scott

    you say memory & notice in phenomenolgical terms
    you are right, but I suggested this in ontological terms,
    where we try to tell a story of the cosmos prior to being.
    G Read suggests that we take universe as = to all
    evolving possibles, and cosmos as finite actuality, a
    subset of all evolving possibles. He also suggests that
    absense is key to understanding contradictory identity.
    It is the return from absense that implies the universal.
    It is the withdrawal that makes actual the particular.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 7:49 PM
    Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning

    > David M,
    >
    > [DM:]> I wonder if your view here of priority of the universal
    > > is conceptually reducing the reality of DQ's creativity.
    > > It is right from a phenomenal/experience point of view
    > > but ontologically? If a new event occurs it could be unique
    > > and simply flux, if it repeats it moves towards the possibility
    > > of expressing a universal, it surely has to raise itself out of
    > > the flux persistently to start to look like it will repeat
    > > enough to be a universal and not an accidental repeat.
    > > I think it is plausible/likely that when a universal emerges
    > > that it is doing so via a cumulative influence from previous
    > > events that later events are being influenced by. Given this
    > > approach every universal originates with a genetic (not DNA)
    > > particular/unique prototype to be foolowed by non-unique events
    > > after that. What problems would you have with this?
    > >
    >
    > That it doesn't work, in that it assumes a world of particulars from which
    > a world of universals comes into being. But one can't get here (concepts)
    > from there. How can the fact of repeating be noticed at all? Indeed, how
    > can the new event be noticed at all? Where is the memory needed to match
    > events as being of a pattern? The "Ultimate", as in how Geoffrey Read uses
    > the term -- as described on the web site, but contrary to what he says,
    has
    > to be both universal and particular, or rather, encapsulate both of them
    in
    > contradictory identity. Or, as Peirce says, thirdness (that is, semiotic
    > phenomena: sign + referenced object + interpretant) are irreducible into
    > seconds, which would be your new event.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 10:21:27 BST