From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 05:27:15 BST
Ham,
Ham said:
You're the second respondent to assert that reality is semiotic. I'm not
well versed in semiotics. Doesn't this simply mean that everything in
reality is symbolic? And, if that's the meaning, where's the "beef"? In
other words, what is the "real" reality?
Scott:
Yes, reality is the play of signs. A sign is only a movement to another
sign. The map, to be sure, is not the territory, but the territory is just
another map.
> Scott:
> I would just call (B) immaterialism, since Platonic idealism is not
> consciousness-centric, and other idealisms (Berkeley, Kant, Hegel,
Bradley)
> all have their quirks. In any case, I've stated several times my notion of
> "primary reality": everything is semiotic. This is, I suppose, a variation
> on (B). I feel it is well expressed by Aquinas: "The object of nature is
> established between two intelligences."
Ham said:
I don't understand the Aquinas statement. What does he mean by "between two
intelligences"? Is he referring to Divine Intelligence versus human
intelligence?
Scott:
Yes. What we call physical reality is our turning (through perception)
non-spatiotemporal Ideas into spatio-temporal form. Now this is similar to
Platonism, except I see the objects of nature as words, not copies. In our
current evolutionary stage, we have lost the ability to read them, and so
they appear to us *as* objects. If you have been following Anthony's remarks
about Barfield in the Transubstantiation thread, this is because we have
left behind the stage of original participation, but have yet to arrive at
final participation. Materialism (and SOM in general) as a metaphysics could
only appear in this intermediate stage.
Ham said:
Do you agree with Arlo that my "two choices represent 'subjectivism' and
'objectivism'."? If so, by choosing Statement B you are opting for a
subjective reality (i.e., conscious awareness or proprietary sensibility).
Scott:
See my response to Arlo on this.
Arlo also said:
> I'd (personally) reject both in favor of a
> sociocultural or semiotic-driven framework.
Ham said:
I guess I'm a literalist, but it seems to me that a semiotic-driven
framework implies something to fill the frame. In other words, the primary
reality would be whatever is the "content" of the framework.
Scott:
If you can describe content, then the content is structural, same as the
description. The words of the description move you to the structure, but
then what? I say the structure is just another semiotic whatsis to move you
onto something else, etc. Now, what about the "you" that gets moved? Well,
perhaps it is nothing but the movement.
Ham said:
So far, reality for the MD still seems very fuzzy.
Scott:
Is there any reason it shouldn't be fuzzy?
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 05:45:32 BST