On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 07:54 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
What is the bond between form and content in experience,
between the abstract formal categories and the concrete
material contents residing in experience?
The real question is why is the conclusion of Laws of Form so hard to understand?
An observer, since he distinguishes the space he occupies, is also a mark.
In the experiments above, imagine the circles to be forms and their circumferences to be
the distinctions shaping the spaces of these forms.
In this conception a distinction drawn in any space is a mark distinguishing the space.
Equally and conversely, any mark in a space draws a distinction.
We see now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only
interchangeable, but, in the form, identical.
The three are identical in content, but since they each have a different sign assigned to
them, they are not identical in their intent. Recall:
Call it the first distinction
Call the space in which it is drawn the space severed or cloven by the distinction.
Call the parts of the space shaped by the severance or cleft the sides of the distinction
or, alternatively, the spaces, states, or contents distinguished by the distinction.
Let any mark, token, or sign be taken in any way with or with regard to the distinction as
Call the use of any signal its intent.
I believe all you who maintain any kind of mind-body, form-content separation cannot
accept the observation that it truly is "forms all the way down." You do so
because to do so means that there is one creator, the Creator of the First Distinction,
and that His intent was manifest in that First Distinction, and permeates all of the
subsequent spaces of that First Distinction. This means that you are not the First
Distinction, but made in the image of the First Distinction. That is to say you are a
created creature, who, unlike ChatGPT, refuses to acknowledge their creator, and that is a
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey(a)att.net>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 7:54 AM
To: Conceptual Graphs <cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org>
Subject: [CG] Re: In the Way of Inquiry
Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Reconciling Accounts
The Reader may share with the Author a feeling of discontent at this point, attempting to
reconcile the formal intentions of this inquiry with the cardinal contentions of
Let me try to express the difficulty in the form of a question:
What is the bond between form and content in experience, between the abstract formal
categories and the concrete material contents residing in experience?
Once toward the end of my undergrad years a professor asked me how I'd personally
define mathematics and I told him I saw it as “the form of experience and the experience
of form”. This is not the place to argue for the virtues of that formulation but it does
afford me one of the handles I have on the bond between form and content in experience.
I have no more than a tentative way of approaching the question.
I take there to be a primitive category of “form‑in‑experience” — I don't have a handy
name for it yet but it looks to have a flexible nature which from the standpoint of a
given agent easily passes from the “structure of experience” to the “experience of
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org To unsubscribe send an email to