[CG] Re: In the Way of Inquiry

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: Content 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. Intent Let any mark, token, or sign be taken in any way with or with regard to the distinction as a signal. 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 sad thing. Best regards, Lyle -----Original Message----- 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 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/24/in-the-way-of-inquiry-reconciling… All, 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 experience. 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 structure”. Regards, Jon https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry _______________________________________________ CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org