From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 19:13:28 GMT
[Arlo]
And "analogs" ARE semitoic mediations, Case. That's the point I was trying
to make in the other thread. For "one experience" to be compared to "another
experience", at least one of the situations has to be semiotically encoded,
or else there would be no way to "act on" that situation once you are
outside it.
Thus, if the value judgement "the stove is hot but better than the snakes on
the floor" occurs, it is because the "snake experience" as "really low
Quality" has been semiotically encoded, and thus can be accessed for
comparison from the perspective one has when sitting on the stove.
Some argue, that BOTH situations have to be encoded for relationist
valuation to occur, because such valuation mandates symbolically
representing such experience. I tend to lean towards "at least one
situation", without committing to "both", but the point is that semiosis
undergirds the relational valuation process. It has to, or else how would
one access the "low Quality analogs" of past experience? Pre-intellectual
experience is "atemporal", that is, it is "in the moment".
[Case]
Just wondering here but at what point in this semiosis can we start talking
about nouns and verbs?
You know static stuff and dynamic stuff...
And if we get around to it, are the verbs going to be undefined by
definition?
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 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 19:19:18 GMT