[FRIAM] Mysticism: still effing the ineffable?

[steve smith]

> This might be worth hashing out. Or maybe I'm just posting it in lieu 
> of journaling. I apologize for the length.
>
Thanks for noodling here...   I would claim what we are doing here is 
*attempting* the co-munication you often suggest doesn't exist ;)


> Precision, prediction, repetition are all contextualized by the 
> stigmergic stew ... just like intersubjectivity and participatory are.
>
> I think I'm trying to make the argument that intersubjectivity and 
> participatory are the same thing and the only informal things are 
> metaphysical/horizon things that can be practically dealt with by 
> proxy, using observable stand-ins for the informal parts.

I distinguish participatory and intersubjective only in the context:  
Participatory (ala Wheeler et-al) suggests that the "intersubjectivity" 
applies to what we otherwise regard as an entirely objectively 
independent reality from observers in the physics/physical sense... 
matter and energy roughly. Intersubjective in my parlance is that which 
agential beings engage in.  "I am who you think I think I am" and "Your 
opinion of me is none of my business" and "Is that piece of paper with 
the writing (in cyrillic) stating '100 Rubles' an 'IOU' or a 'UoweMe'?".

Humans (and other agentic beings) operate on the symbolic emergent 
affordances of the emergent entities *as if* they are as "real" as 
physical objects and energetic relations as sticks and stones, even 
levers and missiles.   a stick is only lever when "used as a lever" and 
a stone is a ballistic missile only when used with that intention?    
And in fact they "are real" to the agentic beings because that is the 
universe of discourse they live in (right up until the ballistic missile 
crushes their head?)

The intersubjective is so pervasive (among humans and our familiars) IMO 
that we take it to be fundamental ground truth. The participatory 
appears to be the same at a whole different level of abstraction, but I 
suppose that pan-consciousness resolves that distinction?

I should also acknowledge your use of "the formal" and the 
intersubjectivity implied by "precise, predictable, repeatable" enough 
for what purpose and within what community of use/study.

I conjured my 7 modes of reality because I felt they held "differences 
that made a difference"  but as this discussion unfolds it is also fair 
to note where the differences make no difference?

It is effing hard to eff the ineffable...


>
>
> On 6/27/25 3:53 PM, steve smith wrote:
>> I find "intersubjective" particularly useful and "participatory" 
>> particularly compelling and agree that the more these are 
>> *formalized* the more useful/compelling they might become, but I 
>> don't see their subjectivity and contingency collapsing into the same 
>> kind of ontic/objectivity that Scientific Realism is grounded in?
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3118 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250630/32dc72c7/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250630/32dc72c7/attachment.sig>