The Objective World vs The Occurring World

About: HOW LANGUAGE SHAPES THE WORLD: A NEW MODEL PROVIDING ACTIONABLE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE OF PERFORMANCE by Werner Erhard

What is meant by “the world” is not the so-called “objective world”, but the world as a person perceives it " what I will refer to as the “occurring world”.

Usually i call "the objective" world just "otherness" ... and i call the "occurring world" just "reality" ... that which we experience ... it is all subjective.

One complexity arises when we need to acknowledge that our subjective world, our occurring world, is also part of the objective world ... yet that part of the objective world is only accessible to us. Thing is, I cannot call that part of the objective world to which only I have access ... that part of the objective world with is all of my reality ... i cannot call that "otherness". Perhaps that is why i shouldn't call the objective world otherness. That is just kind of a little weird semantic paradox ... i wouln't make too much of it.

Language has it's foot in both worlds ... the symbol and strings of language ("Yojo"/Symbol) definitely exist in Erhard's objective world and so do the objects they refer to ... and then hey get interperted into the subjective world, Erhard's occuring world, represented in the diagram as "Concept".

Here is John Sowa's original paper introducing this diagram: "Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics"

Note, it was I who drew the line separating being from meta ... primarialy to explicate some Zen type discussions with Mark.

What i think we need to realize ... and this should perhaps be the "take away" from this item ... is that at each vertex of that triangle there is a network that connects, perhaps in a causal manner, every other thing in the universe that also resides at that corner of the universe. So we do end up with three universes ... the one of being ... the one of our personal subjective realities, what shows up for us ... and the world of words literature and language, which we can now search at Google.

seth russell

← artist unknown

Comments

Seth says

Here is a more detailed diagram the relationships between these things. I seem to remember drawing this diagram but there does not appear to be any credit given to me here ... oh well.

Seth says

MR 2013-06-13 09:01:22 16567

I don't get Yojo not one of my words.
Your diagram has words which Erhard didn't use: YoJo, Concept, Meta - diagram is not a Rosetta stone yet. It doesn't show or represent Erhard's "occurring world"

I think YoJo was the name of John F. Sowa's cat. The diagram shows the details of one occurrence of a linguistic string.

Every different philosopher uses different words to refer to these matters ... that is perhaps why this gets so confusing. Erhard's "occuring world" is at the apex of the triangle ... it is labeled "concept" ... could also be named "reality" or "subjective reality" and i've also seen it labeled "interpretation".

Seth says

Here is John Sowa's original paper introducing this diagram: "Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics" ... i re-found that via the Google image search.

Seth says

Interesting how now when you search Google images for "yojo" you see quite a number of these diagrams ... some are mine ... some are Sowa's ... some are others.

Seth says

seth 2013-06-13 09:53:11 16567

MR 2013-06-13 09:46:09 16567

Yep - please define the word YoJo ... it is a label that could be smegma or belly button lint.

well, that is ... err ... kind of the nature of names ... is it not? ... see association.

Incidentally i did answer your question already above ... "I think YoJo was the name of John F. Sowa's cat."

Seth says

I delved into this kind of thing when i was working with the ontology group years ago and i still have most of my diagrams in a directory named mentography over on robustai.net. If you delve into some of those diagrams you will see that i have been all over this shit.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-13 09:56:09 16567

seth 2013-06-13 09:53:11 16567

MR 2013-06-13 09:46:09 16567

Yep - please define the word YoJo ... it is a label that could be smegma or belly button lint.

well, that is ... err ... kind of the nature of names ... is it not? ... see association.

Incidentally i did answer your question already above ... "I think YoJo was the name of John F. Sowa's cat."

Well, I choose not to chase down your rat maze for the answer.
Here is what he said right in one of the beginning slides. Your own diagram is somewhere else.

~~~

In The Title Of This Talk, What Is Meant By “The World”
***

What is meant by “the world” is not the so-called “objective

world”, but the world as a person perceives it – what I will refer

to as the “occurring world”.
***

So the title of this talk should more properly be “How language

shapes the occurring world”.

The occurring world includes the way in which objects, others,

and you yourself occur for you in this or that situation.

This occurring world is the world you live in, the one you

respond to or react to. It is this world with which your mind,

body, feelings, and actions are correlated.

Mark de LA says

Your diagram just confuses me. I know nothing in Erhard's statement that needs elaboration.

Seth says

source: Mark goes ...

Here is what he said right in one of the beginning slides. Your own diagram is somewhere else.

~~~

In The Title Of This Talk, What Is Meant By “The World”
***

What is meant by “the world” is not the so-called “objective

world”, but the world as a person perceives it – what I will refer

to as the “occurring world”.

... and strangely enough that is exactly what i started with above.

Yet you say, without explanation, that "Your own diagram is somewhere else". Well i claim that Erhard and the rest of this semantic traditional thought are talking about the very same things. If you think not, then could you explain why?

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-13 11:04:46 16567

source: Mark goes ...

Here is what he said right in one of the beginning slides. Your own diagram is somewhere else.

~~~

In The Title Of This Talk, What Is Meant By “The World”
***

What is meant by “the world” is not the so-called “objective

world”, but the world as a person perceives it �" what I will refer

to as the “occurring world”.

I guess Erhard is right - he has been teaching this shit since the '70s . The world occurs for you in that diagram which really can't be explained in traditional English
AND
your diagram shows up for me as cognitive dissonance to Erhard's statement.
We Do live in different worlds. I don't think in diagrams. I translate diagrams back into English; especially mentographs or whatever you call your thingy.

Seth says

What i think we need to realize ... and this should perhaps be the "take away" from this item ... is that at each vertex of that triangle there is a network that connects, perhaps in a causal manner, every other thing in the universe that also resides at that corner of the universe. So we do end up with three universes ... the one of being ... the one of our personal subjective realities, what shows up for us ... and the world of words literature and language, which we can now search at Google.

Seth says

source: Mark above

The sequence of encounter described in English first by Peter Ralston for me in his last 13 day
Pleiades class which elaborated a lot on the sequence & is closest to what RS described more shallow in Theory of Knowledge.
The item RS made distinct is the percept or what comes in through the senses before cognizing.

Well of course all of these philosophers are talking about the same thing, RS, Ralston, Pierce, Sowa, Russell, Quine, Aristotle, etc, etc, etc. After all we are all living in the same predicament.

RS, and others, have gone on and on from different perspectives about separating perception from cognition. For me it is a channel, on the one end are our sensual receptor nerves, and on the other is our reality. For purposes of the diagram that is all collapsed into just the one vertex which gets labeled different things by different people. Pierce labeled it "interpretant" ... in Sowa's diagram it got labeled "Concept".

I think ...

a good label to associate to the network that spreads from the "interpretant" vertix is "mind".
a good label to associate to the network that spreads from the object vertex is, to use Erhard's term, "objective world", or perhaps just "nature".
a good label to associate to the network that spreads from the symbol vertex is "meta-world" or perhaps just "language" or maybe just "signs" or maybe just "that which can be put on the internet"

...

Seth says

Here is the English description of the diagram from the person who originally drew it ...

source: Sowa

Figure 1 shows the basic relationships in a meaning triangle (Ogden and Richards 1923). On the lower left is an icon that resembles a cat named Yojo. On the right is a printed symbol that represents his name. The cloud on the top gives an impression of the neural excitation induced by light rays bouncing off Yojo and his surroundings. That excitation, called a concept, is the mediator that relates the symbol to its object.

The cat Yojo, his name, and a concept of Yojo

Figure 1. The meaning triangle

... but it is not just Sowa. The identification of these three things which makes language work dates back to Aristotle and has been discussed by just about every philosopher of language.

Mark de LA says

MR 2013-06-13 12:19:17 16567

seth 2013-06-13 11:57:24 16567

I may or not create a concept to label a pflocikke a pflocikke . After considerable or at least a bit of cognizing I may indeed grab some properties of an encountered pflocikke into a concept that shortens cognizing pflocikkes if, indeed, I can cognize such pflocikkes' properties & they have some.

The sequence of encounter was described in English first by Peter Ralston for me in his last 13 day Pleiades class which elaborated a lot on the sequence & is closest to what RS described more shallow in Theory of Knowledge. He started with the basics of what is a distinction & then on to context which is itself a distinction.
The item RS made distinct is the percept or what comes in through the senses before cognizing.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-13 14:07:37 16567

source: mark
collapsing shit leads to misapplication & errors ... why talk about it at all .... we both manage without the word salad in between ... you talk about your diagram as if that is your reality ... good luck ... my reality has much more solid & tangible properties ... I really don't need the map ... Erhard in later slides & lectures began to elaborate on what language could be used to shape transformations in this World for higher performance & integrity etc. Why not focus on some of that. Your diagram will not lead in such a direction.

That is all just about you. Cognize and picture and work with your reality and the world just whatever way you choose.

My own study of semiotics starting with some of Steiner's books and progressing through my mentographic studies in the 80s and my studies of the Semantic Web in the 90s used the wisdom of that diagram to disambuify what diverse philosohers were talking about. You of course may, or may not, find it useful.

Incidentally a sentence like your "you talk about your diagram as if that is your reality" is either very poorly worded or just a pain and simple insult. Obviously the diagram is not my reality. Perhaps you are trying to tease something out ... i don't know. And, incidentally the tree of life is just exactly the same kind of diagram and should not be reified either.

Have you ever noticed that whenever you whip out that diagram we never get anywhere? Maybe it's because you are talking about your stuff & I am talking about something else. Not a big deal, but it doesn't add to my understanding. Those who grok the Otz ChIim don't grok it looking like that it is entirely different as a real inspiration. Same way with your diagram. I'm asking for you to go beyond your glass bead game into the real world whatever that is. But maybe not ...

Consciousness changes it is not all logic & mathematics.

Mark de LA says

Maybe you don't think your diagram is real (reified?), but when you started talking about Erhard's ideas you whipped out your diagram again & started talking about it instead; collapsing his ideas into yours.

Seth says

MR 2013-06-13 17:41:52 16567

BTW, if you get anywhere into Werner Erhard's writings deep enough you will run into his "life is a conversation" context.

yeah i like that one. i tell the world a story and it tells me one back ... and/or ... the universe tells me a story and i tell... it one back ... and/or ... i find myself in a predicament, then try to figure it out. all good. me, i have this thing that everybody "gets" to make up their unique stance ... lots of different ones do get tried out ... the better ones, should they be communicated, will get propagated. i rather dislike the idea that there is just one way to stand, Erhard just happens to know it, and if i matriculate with his tapes, i will too.

Seth says

MR 2013-06-13 13:21:53 16567

seth 2013-06-13 13:02:01 16567

source: Mark
I may or not create a concept to label a pflocikke a pflocikke . After considerable or at least a bit of cognizing I may indeed grab some properties of an encountered pflocikke into a concept that shortens cognizing pflocikkes if, indeed, I can cognize such pflocikkes' properties & they have some.

...

cool i do that kind of thing too ...

wow all the time. Thing is, if you do it too much you end up with a whole language

Much simpler to understand than your diagram, eh?

The whole thing about the diagram is that it relates the three different worlds together so that we can study their interrelationships. See this much more detailed mentographic diagram.

Seth says

MR 2013-06-13 16:41:02 16567

seth 2013-06-13 14:07:37 16567

Consciousness changes it is not all logic & mathematics.

Hmmm .... so are you saying that you grock the tree of life ... that complex diagram composed of esoteric symbols ... yet you do not understand Pierce's rather simple juxtaposition of three elements of language?

peculiar !
i find it hard to believe.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-14 07:21:50 16567

MR 2013-06-13 17:41:52 16567

BTW, if you get anywhere into Werner Erhard's writings deep enough you will run into his "life is a conversation" context.

Obviously you did not get anywhere near WE's wallaby!

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-14 08:16:36 16567

MR 2013-06-13 16:41:02 16567

seth 2013-06-13 14:07:37 16567

Consciousness changes it is not all logic & mathematics.

peculiar !
i find it hard to believe.

That's because you made up your own story about it which was #full_of_shit. Try eating a picture of a tomato; or going to a map of the North Pole; or fucking a video of a voluptuous beautiful chick & get back to me if you can't tell the difference.

Seth says

You know, there is an elephant in the room that perchance we could even talk about.

Where in the semantic triangle is the spiritual world?

alternatively, where in the tree of life are the three elements of language?

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-14 08:22:05 16567

#side_track

Seth says

MR 2013-06-14 08:21:15 16567

seth 2013-06-14 08:16:36 16567

MR 2013-06-13 16:41:02 16567

seth 2013-06-13 14:07:37 16567

Consciousness changes it is not all logic & mathematics.

peculiar !
i find it hard to believe.

whatever. apparently you are not in a good mood for useful communication. have a nice day.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-06-14 08:45:19 16567

MR 2013-06-14 08:21:15 16567

seth 2013-06-14 08:16:36 16567

MR 2013-06-13 16:41:02 16567

seth 2013-06-13 14:07:37 16567

Consciousness changes it is not all logic & mathematics.

peculiar !
i find it hard to believe.

whatever. apparently you are not in a good mood for useful communication. have a nice day.

#insulting #merde

way to get out of following my posts.

Mark de LA says

Funny thing is that I recently found a series of Rudolf Steiner's lectures which put emphasis on action similar to yours. I will not share it until you can have a decent conversation about Werner's Occurring World & life as conversation.

Seth says

...

You have been my friend. That in itself is a tremendous thing. I wove my webs for you because I liked you. After all, what's a life, anyway? We're born, we live a little while, we die. A spider's life can't help being something of a mess, with all this trapping and eating flies. By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone's life can stand a little of that.” ♥

~ E.B. White, Charlotte's Web ~

Thanks Garden of Pensiveness

Seth says

source: some dialogue about signs and significance

Seth Russell 1:10 PM

i think the meaning of signs exists not only in "the individual (subjective)", but also in the culture at large. i think that can be demonstrated to whatever level of objectivity is required. humans do not live each in their solipsistic subjective world ... believing that they do is, imho, a fundamental error.

...

Seth says

seth 2015-07-17 20:08:46 18554

Maybe a better way to point to this is simply to call it "common experiences". There are many different instances of common experiences in different places and venues on our Earth today and stretching back into ancient history. These are called "cultures" ... or societies ... or sometimes communities ... or even cults ... and sometimes families or tribes. These cultures where specific common experience happen, actually do exist; and those common experiences have dramatic effect on the lives of those people within those cultures.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

So also does what i said today on G+ [edited slightly here] make sense to you?

source: my comment on G+

I think the meaning of signs exists not only in "the individual (subjective)", but also in [a] culture at large. i think that can be demonstrated to whatever level of objectivity is required. humans do not live each in their solipsistic subjective world [whether they think they do or not.] [Thinking that the meanings of signs (or language) are only a solipsitic individual interpertations] is, imho, a fundamental error.

In other words meaning (or interpretation) is not just within individual minds. It is a gestalt which transcends single individual minds.

Notiec this was provoked by "Of course, meaning doesn't exist in the world, only in the individual (subjective)" .... though i am not sure who said that and in what context.

Seth says

source: ... said

Meaning exists in language ... probably nowhere else. Ponder this sign:

well that statement is too ambiguous for me to make any use of.

Semanticists have settled on the semantic triangle above which models meaning as a interpretation in some person that relates a sign (usually words in language) with what it points to. So according to that analysis the meaning (interpretation) exists as a relationship established inside a person. That works. And for any particular example we can identify the three elements and where and when they exist.

There is also the effect of a communication. Both the interpretation and the effect exist ... and they are quite distinct things.

I'm not going to argue about that or accept your publishing a mock or a denial of it here unless you can propose a better model which allows us to better identify the characteristics of what is actually happening in many different examples and talk about them precisely and unambiguously.

My whole avenue of inquiry here is to get a better understanding of the "person" element which contains the interpretation. Specifically to ask: is it reasonable to assume a person's boundary of containment of meaning ends approximately where his skull begins? If interpretations of meanings do not end there, then they must extend out into the common experiences in the culture at large. .... or perhaps to say it differently, a larger person exists. That things happen and are felt entirely differently outside the skull does not, in itself, imply that it is the natural boundary of meaning ... although our biases for our own person habitually tells us that they do.

That looks at the whole Solipsistic assumptions from a slightly different angle. And that is the part of the analysis that it might be fun to examine from different points of view as objectively as possible.

Seth says

i still think it is peculiar that i remember drawing the complex diagram in this presentation, but got no screen credit.

not that it matters

hmmm … maybe i can find a version of it in robustai.net/mentography

Seth says

hmmm maybe this one

Seth says
here is another variation →

Mark de LA says
Objective implies static like an object – tangible
object (n.)

late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from Medieval Latin objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus "lying before, opposite" (as a noun in classical Latin, "charges, accusations"), past participle of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "against" (see ob-) + iacere "to throw" (see jet (v.)). Sense of "thing aimed at" is late 14c. No object "not a thing regarded as important" is from 1782. As an adjective, "presented to the senses," from late 14c. Object lesson "instruction conveyed by examination of a material object" is from 1831.
While occuring implies something dynamic – (a verb)
occur (v.)

1520s, "meet, meet in argument," from Middle French occurrer "happen unexpectedly" or directly from Latin occurrere "run to meet, run against, befall, present itself," from ob "against, toward" (see ob-) + currere "to run" (see current (adj.)). Sense development is from "meet" to "present itself" to "appear" to "happen" ("present itself in the course of events"). Meaning "to come into one's mind" is from 1620s. Related: Occurred; occurring.
~ The kewl part of the topic is that the latter is more immediate & NOW-like where the former is more past-like or static.
The former a noun the latter a verb.

Once something is turned into words (diagrams, pictures, …. ) it is more static – just a snapshot.

Seth says

Seth 2016-03-31 07:12:25 [item 16567#50644]

Once something is turned into words (diagrams, pictures, …. ) it is more static – just a snapshot.

mark

well yes an no. certainly representations are just a “snapshot” of the being which they represent and do not animate as do the beings.

but they do animate in their own right … they associate with others and coallate and circulate in the community. ← that may be a new idea

which you have yet to fully considered.

Chamolion 2016-03-31 07:17:27 [item 16567#50645]

Stirring soup does not animate it. It has to have the capability to animate already – i.e. being.

Seth 2016-03-31 07:24:32 [item 16567#50646]

well i observe the natural world … both organic and inorganic … and i observe it animating quite without a stirrer … or at least i can see the stirring and not the stirrer. ← but does that matter in relationship to the truth of “representations take on a life of their own quite apart from what they originally represented” ? Point is that thoughts (like the beings you said they were) animate … and they animate outside of a single mind … else wtf are we even doing on the internet here?

Chamolion 2016-03-31 07:43:04 [item 16567#50647]

I kinda doubt some of that, but don’t choose to belabor any of it or get into “representations” – to me you seem to digging a hole deeper into meta & duality. I prefer to focus on being, consciousness & the spirit. Will ketchup later. One does not have to go meta just to connect with others. As a matter of observation it is what is common which connects & probably exists in others before the connecting.

… watch what is behind the rose

? … especially the animation beneath your rose

Mark de LA says

Seth 2016-03-31 07:57:23 [item 16567#50649]

well representations are an easy concept to "get into”. “a word representing its thing” ← is one of the simplest things to demonstrate and exemplify. even though RS and GW did not talk much about it in that context it does perminat the thoughts of other philosophers going way way back.

i appreciate you are trying to get away from the duality that representations create. So, ok, maybe best for you not to think about this shit. … er, so i’ll shut up here with you about it

… re nuff said

Seth says

Seth 2016-03-31 08:01:20 [item 16567#50650]

incidentally it is a

that nuff said goes now just to my 20715 and not a complete title room the way it did on fbi1. i mean mark wrote thoughts with that title too.

Chamolion 2016-03-31 08:04:40 [item 16567#50651]

search & find & references to the pile obtained still need some work. hope you know, have & understand the source code.

well the search box does it correctly, the [reference] does not.

witness the room: http://www.fastblogit.com/title/nuff%20said

Seth says

Seth 2016-03-31 10:44:31 [item 16567#50657]

mark: “One does not have to go meta just to connect with others. As a matter of observation it is what is common which connects & probably exists in others before the connecting.”

me: Absolutely

. I never said you had to go there.

… er, except maybe to connect with all of those ghosts you find on the internet, especially facebook. ← you might want to consider that aspect.

Surprise, surprise, the world is changing. These new fangeled tools that are out there now are actually changing our very humanity and how we interact with the world. Oh sure, it comes down to the same old interactions … but does someone need to “go meta” to participate is the dance that is happening … well i guess you could be a monk … but then that is not “participating in the dance that is happening”. ← something to think about, huh?

Chamolion 2016-03-31 11:01:35 [item 16567#50658]

Nope! no surprise to me. To find connections …. (wait for it … ) …. wait for it ……

connect!

The Objective World vs The Occurring World

About: HOW LANGUAGE SHAPES THE WORLD: A NEW MODEL PROVIDING ACTIONABLE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE OF PERFORMANCE by Werner Erhard

Tags

Comments

See Also