Modern Logic and the "White Horse Dialogue"
Jerry Kraus
operation of the Predicate Calculus, developed by Cantor and Zermelo
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. They are
considered the basis for much of modern mathematics and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
Predicate Calculus
1. Subset, Union:
{whitecolor} union {horseshape} = {whitecolor,horseshape} not=
{horseshape}
2. Cartesian Product:
{yellowcolor,blackcolor,whitecolor}
*Product*
{horseshape}
=
{(yellowcolor,horseshape),(blackcolor,horseshape),
(whitecolor,horseshape)}
3. Complementation:
A = {(whitecolor,horseshape)}
U = {(yellowcolor,horseshape),(blackcolor,horseshape),
(whitecolor,horseshape)}
U \ A = {(yellowcolor,horseshape),(blackcolor,horseshape)}
4. Symmetric Difference:
A = {(whitecolor,horseshape)}
U = {(yellowcolor,horseshape),(blackcolor,horseshape),
(whitecolor,horseshape)}
Difference =
{(yellowcolor,horseshape),(blackcolor,horseshape)}
The Problem with them is, they are all quite explicitly stated in the
Classic Chinese Dialogue, the "White Horse Dialogue", by Gongsun
Longzi, circa 300 B.C. !!!
http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html
The Chinese Logicians, including Gongsun Longzi, were the last
exponents of the Mohist School of Philosophy, the only ancient Chinese
Philosophical sect to disappear completely, which I have examined in
another article, below:
The question is, why did they disappear? Why was their work not
pursued? What would have been the consequences if it had been
pursued? Why is their work not even referenced by modern logicians?
What are the relationships between technology, science and social
development that lead to some ideas being recognized and developed,
while others are not, at a particular time?
Day Brown
But firstly, everyone is not equal. By their time, China was already
being affected by ideas and documents coming from the Silk Road by the
Tocharians. On clue is that while all languages have words for "men"
and "women", Tocharian has a special suffix, "-os", which denotes a
sentient being.
Nobody argues that a schizophrenic or retard is equal to a rational
being. The rational being feels a duty to them that they do not feel
twards others.
The Vedas, Buddhism, and Taoism were already well established with the
use of altered states of consciousness which provide insights the
conscious mind cant see.
Jerry Kraus
The Mohists were somewhat analogous to modern Marxists: authoritarian
but egalitarian. They were the sworn enemies of the Confucians who
supported a strict, traditional hierarchy in Chinese affairs. I argue
that Maoism is to some extent a reemergence of traditional Mohism.
Jerry Kraus
I guess I'm suggesting that there may be some active
suppression of new ideas by the "powers that be" --
corporations, for example -- who see them as a threat
to the status quo, and their current power base.
Certainly, I don't think corporations actively sponsor
the development of new ideas to the extent that they
pretend to. Big ideas are hard to control, they can't
be patented. My own pet peeve is controlled nuclear
fusion, which I suspect is deliberately being
sidetracked and suppressed by the oil industry.
Logic would have been a major threat to the
establishment of an empire in China, and its
maintenance. It gives anyone the power to make the
Emperor look ridiculous. Thus -- we better get rid of
these Mohist Logician guys! So, they did.
John Jones
Your post annoyed me. THIS:
"Subset, Union: {whitecolor} union {horseshape} =
{whitecolor,horseshape} not= {horseshape}"
is only a sign, and hence gibberish, like "$£$%".
Please write your post again and say what you mean, without opting for
obscure truncations.
John Jones
"Subset, Union: {whitecolor} union {horseshape} =
{whitecolor,horseshape} not= {horseshape}"
is only a sign, and hence gibberish, like "$£$%".
Jerry Kraus
>
> > The question is, why did they disappear? Why was their work not
> > pursued? What would have been the consequences if it had been
> > pursued? Why is their work not even referenced by modern logicians?
> > What are the relationships between technology, science and social
> > development that lead to some ideas being recognized and developed,
> > while others are not, at a particular time?
>
> Your post annoyed me. THIS:
>
> "Subset, Union: {whitecolor} union {horseshape} =
> {whitecolor,horseshape} not= {horseshape}"
>
> is only a sign, and hence gibberish, like "$£$%".
>
> Please write your post again and say what you mean, without opting for
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry if I annoyed you, John. Well, if you read the dialogue, it says
that a white horse is not a horse, because a "horse" is a shape, while
a "white horse" is a combination of a color and a shape, and a shape
alone is not the same as the combination of a color and a shape. That
is, the union of a color and a shape into a single set, is not
identical to a set consisting of a shape alone. Clearer?
John Jones
White and horse are not different or the same, they are incommensurable.
They come from unique frameworks. Any ill-inspired 'combination' of them
produces a paradigmatic hybrid that appears to support a new object
'white horse'(a hybrid of colour and shape) which only consensus can
pardon.
To expand a little, if we erronously view a white horse as a combination
object then we create a paradigmatic or framework hybrid, created from
the interaction of the frameworks of white and horse, seemingly to bring
us the framework of white horse whose objects are white horses. But
there is no function or process for making such a synthesis of
frameworks, frameworks do not interact, they are incommensurable, so
only consensus can pardon or allow that combination-framework and its
'combination-objects'- these being the 'combination-white horses'. If we
don't view a white horse as a combination then, and to view it
correctly, a white horse is a new object, because it comes from a new
framework, not a 'combined' framework. To continue, as a horse also
comes from a framework - the framework 'horse', then by virtue of coming
from unique frameworks the white horse and horse are incommensurable
objects, and not the same or different.
Thus, it is only our pleasure that judges the incommensurable objects
white horse and horse as 'the same', or the chinese philosopher as
'different', but neither are correct.
Also, you are saying that an object is a set of properties. That is, an
'unknown X' is the ground for 'combination' or 'union' of properties.
But again there can be no union or combination for incommensurable
objects like white and horse into a fictional hybrid entity
'combination-white horse'. No, a white horse is an entirely new object.
It isn't created by combination. Viewed erronously as a
'combination-white horse', it isn't really an object at all, nor even a
framework for instantiating objects, but an obscure hybrid of an object
and a framework.
OK. Apart from all that, 'sets' aren't functions that can 'combine'
things ontologically. A set of cows doesn't create a herd by virtue of
being a set. A set might be conceived as a function mapping (set-ing)
between either commensurable or incommensurable objects. In the former
case a set is not a function because no new properties emerge. In the
latter case, new properties seem to emerge (a white horse from white and
horse)from the mapping between the incommensurables of white and horse.
But they don't in actuality. We need to create a new set, not simply
'combine' old sets. A combination of a knife, fork and spoon doesn't
necessarily make a set of cutlery, a set of flowers isn't necessarily a
bouquet. We are dealing with incommensurable objects here, even if, for
example, the cutlery, and the knives, forks etc are both found in the
same place in the same kitchen draw. So in neither case of commensurable
and incommensurable objects, is a set operative as a function.
Finally, regarding your complaint about the failure of logic to doff its
hat where it oughta', technical logic, in the best stereotypical
analytic tradition, routinely ignores both historical context and
contempory 'continentalist' thought on logic, even ignoring their own
natural language philosophical roots. So don't be surprised at the
absence of historical echo or comment.
Immortalist
Didn't the Chinese build some of the first water clocks for keeping
time. Then I think the British brought the first mechanical clocks and
they put one in the forbidden city. But then conflict came and they
banned them and so they had to rediscover them all over again many
years later. Sort od wiped them out of their collective memory. There
is a danger in a government banning the results of trade and speech
and destroying potential technologies. Many states have done it, not
just China, but China stands out, in some history books, like the
Discoverers by Daniel J Boorstin who speaks many pages on this and
when China would not let traders trade anything or come on land off
their sailing ships. Maybe someone has this period in their mind more
freshly than I do right now,
http://www.amazon.com/Discoverers-Daniel-J-Boorstin/dp/0394726251
Even in the West, when speech and technology are means to the ends of
either ideology or religion, entire trends in social evolution can
become extinct. When speech and technology are given a general free
range, many good things can happen.
Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a form of government in which the citizen is
totally subject to absolute state authority in all aspects of day-to-
day life. The term was created by Hannah Arendt in order to illustrate
the commonalities between Nazism and Stalinism. It has also been used
to include all fascist and communist regimes, although some would
characterize some fascist regimes, such as Franco's Spain, and some
communist regimes, such as China under Deng Xiaoping, as more
authoritarian than totalitarian. Some other countries considered
totalitarian are Cuba and North Korea.
Most people consider totalitarianism to be the extreme case of
authoritarianism.
Totalitarian governments are often dictatorships. The terms
totalitarian democracy and totalitarian republic have also been used.
This classification results from the fact that totalitarian regimes
are generally popular, at least at the beginning, and their
ideological justification comes from the state acting on behalf of the
people.
Most political scientists believe that totalitarian regimes were rare
before the 20th century as the technological means and ideological
justifications for controlling large numbers of people did not exist.
Some political analysts, notably Jean Kirkpatrick, make a distinction
between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Both types of
governments can be extremely brutal to political opponents. However,
in an authoritarian government, the government's efforts are directed
at those who are considered political opponents, and the government
has neither the will or often the means to control every aspect of an
individual's life. In a totalitarian system, ideology requires that
every aspect of an individual's life be subordinate to the state.
In some political philosophies such as libertarianism, totalitarianism
is regarded as the most extreme form of statism. However, other
political philosophers disagree with this analysis as it implies that
totalitarianism can come into being through a slow and gradual
increase from an operational government, while totalitarian regimes
almost uniformly come into being as a result of a revolution which
replaces what is generally regarded as an ineffective government.
Some religious Fundamentalist regimes, such as those found in Iran
have sometimes been described as totalitarian.
See also: Gleichschaltung, Stalinism, communism, fascism, single-party
state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
NIce analysis, John.
Sure, I'm oversimplifying, not just reality, but, to some extent, also
the dialogue.
It is astonishingly sophisticated, ontologically, logically, for 300
B.C. Nothing even close to it in Plato or Aristotle, that I'm aware
of, anyway. And it does imply most of the basic principles of modern
logic. Curious how, although the Chinese retained it as a "Classic"
it tended, along with the other contemporary logical works, to be
viewed as "trivial" and "frivolous". Did they really think it was
trivial, or, did they just want to make sure the average person didn't
pay too much attention to its implications, leaving it to the
Mandarins to employ it? Ridicule is a very powerful control strategy
for ideas. Look at what professional academics do to ideas they don't
like! And, like you say, they just tend to ignore anything that
doesn't make them look good, or original, in any case.
Jerry Kraus
> On Mar 24, 11:41 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Immortalist. No tradition of monotheism -- Buddhism isn't really
theistic. I've argued that this means, effectively, they have no
sense of universal morality or order, and that this implies no real
sense of theoretical science. Here are French and German versions.
I'm doing one in Spanish, now, too.
Actually, as we're seeing now in Tibet, the Chinese are very much
inclined to civil war. Contrary to popular opinion they really don't
get along very well with each other. But, they are extremely
practical and results oriented. Again, this may be related to the
abscence of a sense of a universal order, purpose or direction: since
they are uninterested in "higher meanings" or an "afterlife" they
focus on the immediate practicalities.
John Jones
I am waiting to see if my PhD proposal is accepted. It is about 'objects
and their manifesting conditions'. I will use the white horse dialogue.
Funny thing, I will also use Gottlob Frege's 'the concept horse is not a
concept'.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds like a good idea, John. Should be quite interesting.
Immortalist
> On Mar 25, 12:55 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 24, 11:41 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There are some very unique features about Chinese culture,
> Immortalist. No tradition of monotheism -- Buddhism isn't really
> theistic. I've argued that this means, effectively, they have no
> sense of universal morality or order, and that this implies no real
> sense of theoretical science. Here are French and German versions.
> I'm doing one in Spanish, now, too.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/de.sci.philosophie/browse_thread/threa...
>
> Actually, as we're seeing now in Tibet, the Chinese are very much
> inclined to civil war. Contrary to popular opinion they really don't
> get along very well with each other. But, they are extremely
> practical and results oriented. Again, this may be related to the
> abscence of a sense of a universal order, purpose or direction: since
> they are uninterested in "higher meanings" or an "afterlife" they
> focus on the immediate practicalities.
I like your approach. I think I was describing this 4 or 5 thousand
year period of autocratic centralized imperial rule;
Historians often refer to the period from Qin Dynasty to the end of
Qing Dynasty as Imperial China. Though the unified reign of the Qin
Emperor lasted only 12 years, he managed to subdue great parts of what
constitutes the core of the Han Chinese homeland and to unite them
under a tightly centralized Legalist government seated at Xianyang
(close to modern Xi'an). The doctrine of legalism that guided the Qin
emphasized strict adherence to a legal code and the absolute power of
the emperor. This philosophy of Legalism, while effective for
expanding the empire in a military fashion, proved unworkable for
governing it in peace time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_China#Imperial_era
According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huang,
the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BCE, his chancellor
Li Si suggested suppressing the freedom of speech, unifying all
thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations
that the intelligentsia sang false praise and raised dissent through
libel.
Beginning in 213 BCE, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of
Thought -- except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as
legalism -- were subject to book burning.
Qin Shi Huang burned the other histories out of fear that they
undermined his legitimacy, and wrote his own history books.
Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area.
Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except
those written by the Qin historians be burned; that the Classic of
Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different
schools be handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone
discussing these two particular books be executed; that those using
ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death,
along with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases
that came to their attention were equally guilty; and that those who
had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to
be banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great
Wall. The only books to be spared in the destruction were books on
medicine, agriculture and divination.
Chinese history records at least 15 other major instances of book
burning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_burn_the_classics_and_to_bury_the_scholars
Day Brown
thousands of years, no matter where you went you could hear the dogs
of the next village barking, is... limited per capita resources and
group think to manage them on a larger scale.
Recent archeology revealed masterful bronze castings of the "tree of
life" along with human figures that differ dramatically from what we
think of as the Chinese style since the bronze age. The whole deviant
culture was obliterated. Europe was never organized enuf to do that.
After the Kamakazi disaster, the emperor decided what the limits of
China was, rather like Hadrian; but the Chinese emperor's opinion
stuck, not Hadrian's. Group think again. Course the limits of group
think also resulted in levels of craftsmanship that far exceeded
anything anywhere else.
It remains to be seen how, now that China is entering the modern
world, and the Chin are getting exposed to so many unfamiliar ideas,
including some of their own obscure roots like Monism and the bronze
artistry, whether they will be able to take advantage of the
innovation, or close off because it disturbs their sensibilities too
much.
Jerry Kraus
Well, the West has plenty of periods of book burnings as well -- the
Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis, the Catholic Index of Forbidden books
etc.
> I like your approach. I think I was describing this 4 or 5 thousand
> year period of autocratic centralized imperial rule;
Really, I think it's about 2,000 years of autocratic rule, from the
Qin Dynasty to the 20th century. Most of it more prosperous than the
West, by the way: perhaps the result of such stability. The Mohists
may have actually self-suppressed around the beginning of the Qin
period. They were a powerful paramilitary force in their own right,
and would have been difficult to suppress. But, as a military force,
they respected the value of authority. They may have felt that a
united empire under the Qin was the best option for China.
There are some aspects to Chinese history that look downright wierd to
a Westerner. The magistrate who committed suicide after a shrine had
been put up to him as a martyr, murdered by rebels: he didn't want to
disappoint the King who built the shrine in his honor, and who didn't
realize he was still alive! The 3rd century B.C. ruler who tortured
to death a supposedly disloyal adviser during a banquet for his
nobles, threw the bloody body on the table, and required all present,
ladies and gentlemen, to urinate on the body as a sign of their
loyalty! Even Al Capone wouldn't have tried that last part on his
"associates".
Jerry Kraus
China is fascinating and very difficult to figure out. Another
planet, effectively. They do not think like the people in the West,
and the differences are not readily predictable. As I say, the lack
of monotheism definitely is a part of the picture. So is the
pictographic script, a fundamentally different form of communication,
although, you do get used to it. They're still rather withdrawn from
the rest of the world, their traditional role. But, that withdrawal
is gradually being broken down. The results should be interesting,
but not necessarily constructive. One could imagine some pretty nasty
wars developing between China and the rest of the world.
On the other hand, the nation is so unstable, particularly the Western
half of China, that they'll probably be too busy suppressing internal
revolts to invade anybody else.