From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2005 - 17:39:53 GMT
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:41 AM Scott writes to Joe,
Joe said:
IMO Another way of looking at 'interpretant' is suggested by Gurdjieff.
Without describing evolution he divides matter into two kinds. He creates
his own words. He wrote in Russian and I expect some of his words are
untranslatable. One matter he calls Etherokrilno. Then there is another kind
of matter he calls Okidanokh. I have no reason to think he was describing
two universes. Omnipresent Okidanokh is unusual in that in the presence of a
higher level it separates into its three component forces. In the removal of
a higher level it reverts back to its original manifestation. The relative
combination of these three forces creates all the matter we know. This is
the basis of his description of the law of three. Everything is composed of
three forces. The interpretant then becomes a force which divides Okidanokh.
As I read your statement, I would assume that the created awareness of the
individual would be an interpretant.
Fantastic! (Or fantasy!)
Scott:
I agree: fantastic Or fantasy :-). I get nervous when comparing triads. On
obvious case is comparing Peirce's semiotic triad with the Trinity. I don't
think it makes sense to do so -- the only commonalty is that both triads are
irreducible. I am not familiar enough with Gurdjieff, but this sounds like
something I've said know and then -- that in a contradictory identity (like
form/formlessness) there is also a third word that needs to be included,
like value. I'll also mention Coleridge's formula: two forces (one expansive
and one contractive) of one Power.
Hi Scott and all,
I agree commonality in being irreducible doesn't mean much. I look at the
ease in my thought patterns. I easily see positive and negative, subject and
object, DQ, SQ, etc. It seems that in my thoughts dualities abound. I am not
familiar with Coleridge's formula: two forces (one expansive and one
contractive) of one power.
IMO two leads to balance and stability. The dynamic is always changing so I
want to find a third to see how the flow goes. I accept that many times I am
blind to a third. Forcing an issue may change the direction of the flow and
be counterproductive.
I have read somewhere that an event can be creative, destructive or
preservative. Was the tsunami creative or destructive? It seemed to be a
dynamic event.
Joe
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 : Fri Feb 25 2005 - 17:57:36 GMT