72 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 25, 2019, 3:56:26 PM9/25/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications

Cf: Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Overview

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-overview/

My long ago encounter with Peirce's 1870 paper, "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives,

Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic", was one of the events

precipitating my return from the hazier heights of philosophy to the solid plains of mathematics below.

Over the years I copied out various drafts of my study notes to the web, consisting of selections from

Peirce's paper along with my running commentary. I later serialized these notes to my blog and put all

the links on an Overview page. Please see the blog post linked above for the rest of the Overview.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-overview/

My long ago encounter with Peirce's 1870 paper, "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives,

Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic", was one of the events

precipitating my return from the hazier heights of philosophy to the solid plains of mathematics below.

Over the years I copied out various drafts of my study notes to the web, consisting of selections from

Peirce's paper along with my running commentary. I later serialized these notes to my blog and put all

the links on an Overview page. Please see the blog post linked above for the rest of the Overview.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

Sep 27, 2019, 9:30:11 AM9/27/19

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com

Jon,

One of my interests is in the intersection between images and
prose. The note by Peirce "Proto-Graphical Syntax (Comment 7.1)
is prescient. It echo's a smasiograhic image that has been
discussed recently on the web. The image below shows two houses,
and the tree shapes represent people.

In the image a girl complains to her ex-lover that his new relationship is not useful, and he is missing an opportunity to have children with her. This image was created by a Yukaghir girl for a local game similar to Pictionary.

http://historyview.blogspot.com/2011/10/yukaghir-girl-writes-love-letter.htm-John Bottoms

FirstStar Systems

Sep 30, 2019, 11:36:09 PM9/30/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications

Cf: Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Discussion 1

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/30/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/

John Bottoms, writing in the Ontolog Forum, compared the graphic

I drew for one of Peirce's relational formulas to a pictographic

image he had been studying.

Peirce introduced the compound term "giver of a horse to a lover of a woman"

in Selection 7 to illustrate his use of marks of reference to identify the

corresponding correlates of component terms. The symbolic form of this

compound term is shown below.

http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathfrak%7Bg%7D_%7B%5Cdagger%5Cddagger%7D+%7B%7D%5E%5Cdagger%5Cmathit%7Bl%7D_%5Cparallel+%7B%7D%5E%5Cparallel%5Cmathrm%7Bw%7D+%7B%7D%5E%5Cddagger%5Cmathrm%7Bh%7D&bg=FDF9EF&fg=000000&s=2

In my comment on Proto-Graphical Syntax I drew lines of identity to connect

the corresponding marks of reference, as shown in the following Figure.

Figure 1. Giver of a Horse to a Lover of a Woman

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/lor-1870-figure-3.jpg

John tells us what he sees in this Figure in the following words:

<QUOTE>

semasiographic image that has been discussed recently on the web.

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/geoffery-sampson-e280a2-a-yukaghir-girl-writes-a-love-letter.jpg

</QUOTE>

I started a draft in the middle of the night to draw out

the analogies and disanalogies of these two Figures but

the clear light of day showed me I would need to deal

with a host of preliminary issues before moving on.

So I will turn to that task next.

Regards,

Jon

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/30/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/

John Bottoms, writing in the Ontolog Forum, compared the graphic

I drew for one of Peirce's relational formulas to a pictographic

image he had been studying.

Peirce introduced the compound term "giver of a horse to a lover of a woman"

in Selection 7 to illustrate his use of marks of reference to identify the

corresponding correlates of component terms. The symbolic form of this

compound term is shown below.

http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathfrak%7Bg%7D_%7B%5Cdagger%5Cddagger%7D+%7B%7D%5E%5Cdagger%5Cmathit%7Bl%7D_%5Cparallel+%7B%7D%5E%5Cparallel%5Cmathrm%7Bw%7D+%7B%7D%5E%5Cddagger%5Cmathrm%7Bh%7D&bg=FDF9EF&fg=000000&s=2

In my comment on Proto-Graphical Syntax I drew lines of identity to connect

the corresponding marks of reference, as shown in the following Figure.

Figure 1. Giver of a Horse to a Lover of a Woman

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/lor-1870-figure-3.jpg

John tells us what he sees in this Figure in the following words:

<QUOTE>

One of my interests is in the intersection between images and prose.

The note [on Proto-Graphical Syntax] is prescient. It echoes a
semasiographic image that has been discussed recently on the web.

The image below shows two houses, and the tree shapes represent people.

In the image a girl complains to her ex-lover that his new relationship

is not useful, and he is missing an opportunity to have children with her.

This image was created by a Yukaghir girl for a local game similar to

Pictionary.

Figure 2. A Yukaghir Girl Writes A Love Letter (c) Geoffery Sampson 1985
In the image a girl complains to her ex-lover that his new relationship

is not useful, and he is missing an opportunity to have children with her.

This image was created by a Yukaghir girl for a local game similar to

Pictionary.

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/geoffery-sampson-e280a2-a-yukaghir-girl-writes-a-love-letter.jpg

</QUOTE>

I started a draft in the middle of the night to draw out

the analogies and disanalogies of these two Figures but

the clear light of day showed me I would need to deal

with a host of preliminary issues before moving on.

So I will turn to that task next.

Regards,

Jon

Oct 6, 2019, 10:36:23 PM10/6/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications

Cf: Peirce's Categories : 8

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/06/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-8/

When Threads Collide ...

Questions about Peirce's Categories arose in a couple of Facebook discussions,

giving me a chance to tackle a number of issues that often lead people astray.

As usual, most problems in Peirce's thought can be cleared up by duly diligent

applications of his pragmatic maxim and his relational logic working in tandem.

As one might anticipate, then, my answer to the question of Peirce's categories

has one foot already under our present head.

The best way to get clear about Peirce's categories is to look to their

origin in Aristotle's concept of a category, in effect nothing more

mysterious than a grammatical device for reducing the ambiguities

of equivocal terms. We find Peirce starting out this way in his

classification of logical terms, for instance, here:

* Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Selection 1

: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-selection-1/

Regards,

Jon

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/06/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-8/

When Threads Collide ...

Questions about Peirce's Categories arose in a couple of Facebook discussions,

giving me a chance to tackle a number of issues that often lead people astray.

As usual, most problems in Peirce's thought can be cleared up by duly diligent

applications of his pragmatic maxim and his relational logic working in tandem.

As one might anticipate, then, my answer to the question of Peirce's categories

has one foot already under our present head.

The best way to get clear about Peirce's categories is to look to their

origin in Aristotle's concept of a category, in effect nothing more

mysterious than a grammatical device for reducing the ambiguities

of equivocal terms. We find Peirce starting out this way in his

classification of logical terms, for instance, here:

* Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Selection 1

: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-selection-1/

Regards,

Jon

Oct 8, 2019, 12:06:30 AM10/8/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

Cf : Peirce's Categories : 9

At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/07/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-9/

Here's my response to a comment in the Systems Sciences Facebook Group,

questioning whether I might be comparing apples and oranges in lumping

philosophical and mathematical categories under the same head.

Scanning the spectrum of sources I sampled in my Precursors of Category Theory,

there are many differences in the categorical paradigms different observers

developed over the centuries. Just for starters, the numbers of categories

vary widely from system to system. But there is a conceptual continuity in

the "function" category markers perform in every system. If we look to the

role a category marker plays in the relation between formal expressions and

their formal objects, in effect, if we look at the matter from a semiotic

perspective, as Aristotle already did, then we see the job of a category

marker is to reduce ("drive down") the ambiguity of equivocal linguistic

expressions to the point where they obey the laws of logic.

Resources

=========

* Logic Syllabus : Relational Concepts

https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus#Relational_concepts

* Precursors Of Category Theory

https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory

* Survey : Precursors Of Category Theory

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%E2%80%A2-1/

At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/07/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-9/

Here's my response to a comment in the Systems Sciences Facebook Group,

questioning whether I might be comparing apples and oranges in lumping

philosophical and mathematical categories under the same head.

Scanning the spectrum of sources I sampled in my Precursors of Category Theory,

there are many differences in the categorical paradigms different observers

developed over the centuries. Just for starters, the numbers of categories

vary widely from system to system. But there is a conceptual continuity in

the "function" category markers perform in every system. If we look to the

role a category marker plays in the relation between formal expressions and

their formal objects, in effect, if we look at the matter from a semiotic

perspective, as Aristotle already did, then we see the job of a category

marker is to reduce ("drive down") the ambiguity of equivocal linguistic

expressions to the point where they obey the laws of logic.

Resources

=========

* Logic Syllabus : Relational Concepts

https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus#Relational_concepts

* Precursors Of Category Theory

https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory

* Survey : Precursors Of Category Theory

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%E2%80%A2-1/

Oct 8, 2019, 6:00:33 PM10/8/19

to Helmut Raulien, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

Helmut, All ...

There is a kind of "second cousin" kinship between category markers, tenses,

modalities, etc. In several drafts of the previous note I experimented with

grammatical terms like conjugation, declension, diacritic, inflection, etc.

to explain the function of category markers. But I eventually decided this

laid too much stress on their grammatical aspect and distracted from their

main function, which is to focus the relation between formal expressions

and formal objects.

I think it would help to clarify the sorts of formal expressions ("signs")

and formal objects (mostly "mathematical objects") I currently have in mind

to post a bit of content from an earlier discussion in several other groups.

I'll get to that after dinner ...

Regards,

Jon

On 10/8/2019 4:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

> Jon, List,

> for me a simple category marker is the connection of tenses:

> Something providing a connection between past and present

> is of category 1, between present and future category 2,

> and between past and future category 3.

> Best,

> Helmut

There is a kind of "second cousin" kinship between category markers, tenses,

modalities, etc. In several drafts of the previous note I experimented with

grammatical terms like conjugation, declension, diacritic, inflection, etc.

to explain the function of category markers. But I eventually decided this

laid too much stress on their grammatical aspect and distracted from their

main function, which is to focus the relation between formal expressions

and formal objects.

I think it would help to clarify the sorts of formal expressions ("signs")

and formal objects (mostly "mathematical objects") I currently have in mind

to post a bit of content from an earlier discussion in several other groups.

I'll get to that after dinner ...

Regards,

Jon

On 10/8/2019 4:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

> Jon, List,

> for me a simple category marker is the connection of tenses:

> Something providing a connection between past and present

> is of category 1, between present and future category 2,

> and between past and future category 3.

> Best,

> Helmut

Oct 10, 2019, 8:41:06 AM10/10/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Peirce List

Cf: Peirce???s Categories : 10

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/08/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-10/

I began that note on the "Precursors of Category Theory" as a purely

exploratory sketch, plotting a few points on a single theme with no

plans of making an exhaustive survey. Even at that I never got time

to get back to it. I put in a pin for Kant but haven't had a chance

to map out any passages. There are even "incitements" going back to

my earliest days reading Russell and wrestling with his take on type

theory but those inklings are too hazy in my memory to make clear at

present.

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/08/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-10/

I began that note on the "Precursors of Category Theory" as a purely

exploratory sketch, plotting a few points on a single theme with no

plans of making an exhaustive survey. Even at that I never got time

to get back to it. I put in a pin for Kant but haven't had a chance

to map out any passages. There are even "incitements" going back to

my earliest days reading Russell and wrestling with his take on type

theory but those inklings are too hazy in my memory to make clear at

present.

Oct 11, 2019, 3:52:04 PM10/11/19

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, jaw...@att.net, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

Jon,

> whether I might be comparing apples and
oranges in lumping philosophical and mathematical categories under the
same head... there are many differences in the categorical paradigms
different observers developed over the centuries.

There are two kinds of people: lumpers and splitters. On this issue, one could argue for a single lump, as you do. The mathematical category theory is so general that it could be applied to the philosophical theories.

But the kinds of problems that the mathematical theory was designed to solve are very different from the philosophical problems that Aristotle, Porphyry, Kant, and Peirce were trying to solve.

I believe that the pedagogical issues tip the balance in favor of the splitters. It's easier to explain the philosophical issues without bringing in the mathematical theory, and it's easier to explain the mathematical theory without bringing in the philosophical issues. The only people who could understand the application of the mathematical theory to the philosophical issues are those who already have a deep understanding of both. That group is very small, very sophisticated, and they don't need an elementary tutorial.

John

Oct 12, 2019, 11:00:46 AM10/12/19

to Ontolog Forum, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications

Cf: Peirce's Categories : 12

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/12/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-12/

John, Jeff, All ...

Different minds are drawn to Peirce for different reasons

and they tend to discover different stores of value there.

I was attracted to his work largely for his insights into

logic, math, and science and because his articulations of

their springs and catches ring true to the ways their own

practitioners understand them in practice.

One consequence is my tendency to approach the question of

categories from a particular angle, more through the logic

and mathematics of relations than by way of phenomenology.

What follows from that approach gives me sufficient reason

to pursue it, but I'll have to save further motivation until

I develop more material from Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives.

Regards,

Jon

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/12/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-12/

John, Jeff, All ...

Different minds are drawn to Peirce for different reasons

and they tend to discover different stores of value there.

I was attracted to his work largely for his insights into

logic, math, and science and because his articulations of

their springs and catches ring true to the ways their own

practitioners understand them in practice.

One consequence is my tendency to approach the question of

categories from a particular angle, more through the logic

and mathematics of relations than by way of phenomenology.

What follows from that approach gives me sufficient reason

to pursue it, but I'll have to save further motivation until

I develop more material from Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives.

Regards,

Jon

Oct 12, 2019, 2:47:28 PM10/12/19

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications

Jon A, List

I strongly agree with your emphasis on Peirce's mathematics and logic, which were the foundation for his way of thinking, writing, and research from early childhood to the end. But we should also emphasize that all exact thinking in every field is diagrammatic and mathematical. That includes phenomenology and the derivation of the semeiotic categories by the application of mathematics to phenomenology.

To emphasize that point, I'll cite
Leonardo da Vinci, who is often called a renaissance genius. He was
certainly a genius who lived in the Renaissance, but the essence of his
genius was his exact diagrammatical -- hence mathematical --
reasoning.

Although Leonardo had never studied mathematics, he was one of the most creative *applied* mathematicians of all time. Just today, I came across a computerized analysis of a bridge design that had not been built. The analysis showed that his design was structurally sound and that it included safety features that were not re-invented for another 300 years. Unlike the infamous Tacoma Narrows bridge, Leonardo's design could withstand high winds. See https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-leonardo-da-vinci-bridge.html

That article shows the complexity of the design and the computerized construction (with a 3-D printer) that was required to build and test a model.. This is one of many examples of Leonardo's ability to visualize complex 3-D structures that are (a) mathematically correct, (b) physically sound, and (c) fit for purpose as engineering designs.

Leonardo's diagrammatic reasoning was also the foundation for his studies of anatomy and their application in his art. He dissected many animals and human cadavers in order to study the structure of the bones, muscles, and flesh that determined the shapes and motions of their bodies. The precision of his diagrammatic analysis enabled him to produce the most lifelike art of his day (or even of all the days since then).

In his discussions of phenomenology, Peirce had a high regard for artists who are able to analyze their perceptions with mathematical precision. That is the essence of phenomenology. Peirce also had a low opinion of "metaphysicians" who did not have the ability to do diagrammatic reasoning.

Another non-mathematician who was a genius at precise diagrammatic reasoning was Michael Faraday. He could visualize electrical and magnetic fields and their dynamic interactions. To develop his famous equations, Maxwell spent many hours working with Faraday in order to translate Faraday's phenomenological insights to partial differential equations.

Moral of the story: Phenomenology requires the utmost precision in diagrammatic reasoning and in the translation of that reasoning to engineering designs, anatomical drawings, artistic creations, and formal notations in science, mathematics, music, logic, and computer science.

For more examples of the importance of visualization in mathematics itself, see http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf .

John

Oct 12, 2019, 3:14:20 PM10/12/19

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, jaw...@att.net, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

> There are two kinds of people: lumpers and splitters.

Three other related dichotomies are bottom-up/top-down, scruffies/neats, and local / global.
I line up these groups in a single aligned polarity:

Bottom-up --> <-- Top-down

Splitters Lumpers

Scruffies Neats

Local Global

At the bottom, small precise units of a perhaps implicit whole (I'd call this "the empirical ground" -- some people might call it "reality")

At the top, big units of a fuzzy explicit whole (a vague fuzzy sense of wholeness, like "a circle that contains everything" -- "the set of all sets")

Splitters work from the top-down, breaking units into a subunits, so they are "moving to the left" in this framework ("from higher to lower")

Lumpers work from the bottom up, combining what they perceive to be sub-units into integrating wholes, so they are "moving to the right" ("ascending the staircase") in this spectrum ("from lower to higher")

Scruffies are working on immediate and "local" problems that they think might be logically independent of any supposed all-containing super-unit. Some would call them "relativists". For them, it's enough to work on a fragment, because after all there is no primary agreed-upon universal unit, and might never be.

Neats are working from the top down, looking for elegance and simplicity, in deterministic chains they believe are implicit in their integrating unitary foundation.

This is the primary philosophic/scientific/semantic dichotomy that describes everything people anywhere are doing. All ideas, all thought-forms, or political ideas -- indeed, any concept whatsoever -- are organized ("can be organized") somewhere on this spectrum. There are many metaphors in philosophy that describe this framework ("great chain of being" -- or "hierarchy" -- or "tree")

But truly -- the spectrum remains fragmented and uncertain, so the subject quickly becomes (perhaps overwhelmingly) messy in the real-world context of immediate heuristic problem solving.

"All reality is local" -- true from an orthodox ("reductionist") scientific perspective, but perhaps misleading and short-sighted from a philosophic perspective.

*

PS -- After I read my draft of this note, I made a small addition. I changed the wording "all ideas ARE organized on this framework" to "all ideas CAN BE organized" this way. It's not a scientific/empirical observation: it's a postulate, a hypothesis, a proposal, a method, a guiding principle.

"You don't want a crazy fragmented (and enraged) world? -- try this."

Bruce Schuman

Santa Barbara CA USA

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.

For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or

unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/a233f358579a31c2c63f0c8032ab25da.squirrel%40webmail2.bestweb.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer.

Oct 22, 2019, 2:18:27 PM10/22/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

Cf: Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Comment 1

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-1/

Re: The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes : 31

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/21/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-31/

If you concur with the diagnosis of present lapses I gave

on the "Difference" thread, the question becomes: How to

remediate "a failure to comprehend the relational paradigm,

especially triadic relations, their irreducibility, and the

consequences thereof"?

My answer to that naturally brings me back to this thread,

and so I'll continue from this point ...

Regards,

Jon

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-1/

Re: The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes : 31

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/21/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-31/

If you concur with the diagnosis of present lapses I gave

on the "Difference" thread, the question becomes: How to

remediate "a failure to comprehend the relational paradigm,

especially triadic relations, their irreducibility, and the

consequences thereof"?

My answer to that naturally brings me back to this thread,

and so I'll continue from this point ...

Regards,

Jon

Oct 23, 2019, 10:16:48 AM10/23/19

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications, Peirce List

Cf: Peirce???s 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Comment 2

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-2/

I was a little tired when I wrote that last post, and wasn't too

happy with how it read in the morning, so here's another attempt --

***

In a recent post on a thread devoted to incidental issues,

I gave this assessment of our present situation:

One of the more disconcerting developments, I might say "devolutions",

I've observed over the last 20 years has been the general slippage

back to absolutist and dyadic ways of thinking, all of it due to the

stubborn pull of unchecked reductionism and a failure to comprehend

the relational paradigm, especially the basic facts about triadic

relations, their irreducibility, and the consequences thereof.

For anyone who sees our situation this way, and who thinks it

calls for a remedy, the question becomes: How to remediate

a persistent failure to comprehend the relational paradigm,

especially the basic facts about triadic relations, their

Regards,

Jon

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-2/

I was a little tired when I wrote that last post, and wasn't too

happy with how it read in the morning, so here's another attempt --

***

In a recent post on a thread devoted to incidental issues,

I gave this assessment of our present situation:

One of the more disconcerting developments, I might say "devolutions",

I've observed over the last 20 years has been the general slippage

back to absolutist and dyadic ways of thinking, all of it due to the

stubborn pull of unchecked reductionism and a failure to comprehend

the relational paradigm, especially the basic facts about triadic

relations, their irreducibility, and the consequences thereof.

For anyone who sees our situation this way, and who thinks it

calls for a remedy, the question becomes: How to remediate

a persistent failure to comprehend the relational paradigm,

especially the basic facts about triadic relations, their

irreducibility, and the consequences thereof?

My answer to that naturally brings me back to this thread,

so I'll continue from here.
My answer to that naturally brings me back to this thread,

Regards,

Jon

Oct 24, 2019, 5:24:33 PM10/24/19

Cf : Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Discussion 2

At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/

Re : Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Comment 2

At : https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-2/

My previous comment summed up my observations of a general drift toward

"absolutist and dyadic ways of thinking" in the communities of inquiry

I've known since the turn of the century. I traced its cause to "the

stubborn pull of unchecked reductionism" and a corresponding failure

to grasp the relational determinants of complex phenomena.

That last phrase gave me a lot of trouble -- I vacillated between it

and "the unchecked pull of stubborn reductionism" before flipping a coin

going with the one I wrote. To clarify, we are talking a preference for

simple models and theories which is natural enough so long as the chosen

models and theories are up to the task of explaining the phenomena, but

which becomes irrational and unnatural if it persists in the face of

steadily mounting anomalies.

That is my description and my diagnosis of present conditions

as I see them. I could be wrong about either or both. But the

reason for bringing all that up is not to raise a wail of general

lamentation. The purpose of a diagnosis is to indicate a remedy.

Regards,

Jon

At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/

Re : Peirce's 1870 "Logic Of Relatives" : Comment 2

At : https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/22/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-comment-2/

My previous comment summed up my observations of a general drift toward

"absolutist and dyadic ways of thinking" in the communities of inquiry

I've known since the turn of the century. I traced its cause to "the

stubborn pull of unchecked reductionism" and a corresponding failure

to grasp the relational determinants of complex phenomena.

That last phrase gave me a lot of trouble -- I vacillated between it

and "the unchecked pull of stubborn reductionism" before flipping a coin

going with the one I wrote. To clarify, we are talking a preference for

simple models and theories which is natural enough so long as the chosen

models and theories are up to the task of explaining the phenomena, but

which becomes irrational and unnatural if it persists in the face of

steadily mounting anomalies.

That is my description and my diagnosis of present conditions

as I see them. I could be wrong about either or both. But the

reason for bringing all that up is not to raise a wail of general

lamentation. The purpose of a diagnosis is to indicate a remedy.

Regards,

Jon

Apr 16, 2020, 9:32:30 AM4/16/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 13

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/15/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-13/

Re: Peirce List ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020 )

Re: Robert Marty ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00020.html )

All,

With a few choice exceptions I have always found Peirce’s earlier writings on categories, relations, and semiotics to be

more clear, exact, and fruitful in practice than his last attempts to explain himself without the requisite logical and

mathematical supports.

Still, I like Robert Marty’s “podium” picture of the universal categories

( https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474 ), comprehend it all or not,

and I found myself once using a similar picture to explain the relationships

among the big 3 normative sciences of aesthetics, ethics, and logic. I called

this “The Pragmatic Cosmos”, using “cosmos” in the sense of a global order.

It looks like most of this stuff has fallen off the live web but here's

a few links I found.

* The Pragmatic Cosmos (Oct 2003)

http://web.archive.org/web/20061014010215/http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html

* Inquiry Oriented Systems (Feb 2004)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070222005725/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd4.html#05337

• 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20070302154925/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05337.html

… 8. http://web.archive.org/web/20070302155036/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05344.html

* The Pragmatic Cosmos (Mar 2012)

https://www.mail-archive.com/peir...@listserv.iupui.edu/msg00924.html

I'll copy and format pieces of this to my blog as I get time.

Resources

=========

* Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/15/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-13/

Re: Peirce List ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020 )

Re: Robert Marty ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00020.html )

All,

With a few choice exceptions I have always found Peirce’s earlier writings on categories, relations, and semiotics to be

more clear, exact, and fruitful in practice than his last attempts to explain himself without the requisite logical and

mathematical supports.

Still, I like Robert Marty’s “podium” picture of the universal categories

( https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474 ), comprehend it all or not,

and I found myself once using a similar picture to explain the relationships

among the big 3 normative sciences of aesthetics, ethics, and logic. I called

this “The Pragmatic Cosmos”, using “cosmos” in the sense of a global order.

It looks like most of this stuff has fallen off the live web but here's

a few links I found.

* The Pragmatic Cosmos (Oct 2003)

http://web.archive.org/web/20061014010215/http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html

* Inquiry Oriented Systems (Feb 2004)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070222005725/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd4.html#05337

• 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20070302154925/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05337.html

… 8. http://web.archive.org/web/20070302155036/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05344.html

* The Pragmatic Cosmos (Mar 2012)

https://www.mail-archive.com/peir...@listserv.iupui.edu/msg00924.html

I'll copy and format pieces of this to my blog as I get time.

Resources

=========

* Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey

oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

Apr 17, 2020, 12:30:12 PM4/17/20

to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, cyb...@googlegroups.com, peir...@list.iupui.edu, structura...@googlegroups.com, syss...@googlegroups.com

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 14

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/16/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-14/

Continuing with the discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium Diagram” ...

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/16/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-14/

Continuing with the discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium Diagram” ...

Re: Robert Marty ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00047.html )

RM: What do you think of the presuppositions between the levels? Do they make sense to you?

At this point I have mostly questions, which would take further research to answer, not to mention unpacking many books

still in boxes from our move a year and a half ago, none of which I'm at liberty to do right now. So, just off the cuff ...

“Presupposition” is one of those words I tend to avoid, as it has too many uses at odds with each other. There are at

least the architectonic, causal, and logical meanings. It it were only a matter of logic, I would say “P presupposes Q”

means “P ⇒ Q”. But usually people have something more pragmatic or rhetorical in mind than pure logic would require,

something like enthymeme.

It's also common for people to confound the implication order “P ⇒ Q” with the causal order “P causes Q”, whereas it's

more like the reverse of that. In more complex settings we usually have the architectonic sense in mind, and that is

what I sensed in the case of the normative sciences. Viewed with regard to their bases, logic is a special case of

ethics and ethics is a special case of aesthetics, but with regard to their level of oversight, aesthetics must submit

to ethical control and ethics must submit to logical control.

Early on, Peirce used “involution” with the meaning it has in arithmetic or number theory, namely, “exponentiation”,

where x^y means taking x to the power of y. See the following passage and commentary.

* Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives • The Sign of Involution

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Part_2#Selection_12

As far as the boolean or propositional analogue goes, x^y for x, y in {0, 1} means the same thing as x ⇐ y, as one can

tell by comparing the following two operation tables.

Exponentiation and Converse Implication

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/exponentiation-and-converse-implication.png

I haven't looked into whether Peirce uses “involution” or “involvement” with that sense in his later writings.

RM: What do you think of the presuppositions between the levels? Do they make sense to you?

At this point I have mostly questions, which would take further research to answer, not to mention unpacking many books

still in boxes from our move a year and a half ago, none of which I'm at liberty to do right now. So, just off the cuff ...

“Presupposition” is one of those words I tend to avoid, as it has too many uses at odds with each other. There are at

least the architectonic, causal, and logical meanings. It it were only a matter of logic, I would say “P presupposes Q”

means “P ⇒ Q”. But usually people have something more pragmatic or rhetorical in mind than pure logic would require,

something like enthymeme.

It's also common for people to confound the implication order “P ⇒ Q” with the causal order “P causes Q”, whereas it's

more like the reverse of that. In more complex settings we usually have the architectonic sense in mind, and that is

what I sensed in the case of the normative sciences. Viewed with regard to their bases, logic is a special case of

ethics and ethics is a special case of aesthetics, but with regard to their level of oversight, aesthetics must submit

to ethical control and ethics must submit to logical control.

Early on, Peirce used “involution” with the meaning it has in arithmetic or number theory, namely, “exponentiation”,

where x^y means taking x to the power of y. See the following passage and commentary.

* Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives • The Sign of Involution

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Part_2#Selection_12

As far as the boolean or propositional analogue goes, x^y for x, y in {0, 1} means the same thing as x ⇐ y, as one can

tell by comparing the following two operation tables.

Exponentiation and Converse Implication

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/exponentiation-and-converse-implication.png

I haven't looked into whether Peirce uses “involution” or “involvement” with that sense in his later writings.

May 3, 2020, 11:05:13 AM5/3/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Re: Peirce's Categories • 15

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/01/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-15/

Robert Marty wrote: <QUOTE>

I submit for your review this preprint which is awaiting publication:

The Podium of the Universal Categories of C.S. Peirce

=====================================================

https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474

Abstract

========

This article organizes Peirce’s universal categories and their degenerate forms from their presupposition relationships.

These relationships are formally clarified on the basis of Frege’s definition of presupposition. They are visualized

in a “podium” diagram. With these forms, we then follow step by step the well-known and very often cited third Peirce

Lowell Conference of 1903 (third draft) in which he sets out his entire method of analysis based on these categories.

The very strong congruence that is established between the podium and the text validates the importance, even the

necessity, of taking into account these presuppositions in order to correctly understand Peirce’s phenomenology.

I would be very happy to read your comments. </QUOTE>

There were numerous issues stemming from Robert Marty’s post and paper, some central and some tangential, which

attracted my interest and which I hope I can get back to. Seeing as how some of the earliest issues got a little lost

in the flood of discussion that followed I thought I would take a moment to record a few threads for future follow up.

* Subthread 1 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020 )

* Subthread 2 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd2.html#00046 )

* Subthread 3 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd8.html#00199 )

I made a start at rehashing some of these questions on my blog:

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 9

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/12/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-9/

Peirce’s Categories • 13 • 14

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/15/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-13/

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/16/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-14/

Readings On Determination • Discussion 4

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/29/readings-on-determination-%e2%80%a2-discussion-4/

If I get inspiration and time enough, I may try to

organize the issues and further comment on my blog.

Regards,

Jon

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/01/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-15/

Robert Marty wrote: <QUOTE>

I submit for your review this preprint which is awaiting publication:

The Podium of the Universal Categories of C.S. Peirce

=====================================================

https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474

Abstract

========

This article organizes Peirce’s universal categories and their degenerate forms from their presupposition relationships.

These relationships are formally clarified on the basis of Frege’s definition of presupposition. They are visualized

in a “podium” diagram. With these forms, we then follow step by step the well-known and very often cited third Peirce

Lowell Conference of 1903 (third draft) in which he sets out his entire method of analysis based on these categories.

The very strong congruence that is established between the podium and the text validates the importance, even the

necessity, of taking into account these presuppositions in order to correctly understand Peirce’s phenomenology.

I would be very happy to read your comments. </QUOTE>

There were numerous issues stemming from Robert Marty’s post and paper, some central and some tangential, which

attracted my interest and which I hope I can get back to. Seeing as how some of the earliest issues got a little lost

in the flood of discussion that followed I thought I would take a moment to record a few threads for future follow up.

* Subthread 1 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020 )

* Subthread 2 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd2.html#00046 )

* Subthread 3 ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd8.html#00199 )

I made a start at rehashing some of these questions on my blog:

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 9

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/12/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-9/

Peirce’s Categories • 13 • 14

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/15/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-13/

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/16/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-14/

Readings On Determination • Discussion 4

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/29/readings-on-determination-%e2%80%a2-discussion-4/

If I get inspiration and time enough, I may try to

organize the issues and further comment on my blog.

Regards,

Jon

May 5, 2020, 12:48:25 PM5/5/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 16

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/04/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-16/

A feature of particular interest to me in Robert Marty’s paper is the resonance he finds between category theory, as

it’s known in contemporary mathematics, and the study of Peirce’s Categories. I’ve long felt the cross-pollination of

these two fields was naturally bound to bear fruit. In that light I’ll refer again to the “brouillon projet” I wrote on

the Precursors of Category Theory, where I trace a common theme uniting the function of categorical paradigms from

Aristotle through Peirce to present day logic and math.

• Precursors Of Category Theory

https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory

By way of orientation to the perspective I’ll adopt in reading Marty’s “Podium” paper, here’s the first of the excerpts

I collected, from a primer of category theory on the shelves of every student of the subject, giving a thumbnail

genealogy of categories from classical philosophy to current mathematics.

<QUOTE>

Now the discovery of ideas as general as these is chiefly the willingness to make a brash or speculative abstraction, in

this case supported by the pleasure of purloining words from the philosophers: “Category” from Aristotle and Kant,

“Functor” from Carnap (Logische Syntax der Sprache), and “natural transformation” from then current informal parlance.

🙞 Saunders Mac Lane • Categories for the Working Mathematician, 29–30.

</QUOTE>

Resource

========

• Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%e2%80%a2-1/

Regards,

Jon

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/04/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-16/

A feature of particular interest to me in Robert Marty’s paper is the resonance he finds between category theory, as

it’s known in contemporary mathematics, and the study of Peirce’s Categories. I’ve long felt the cross-pollination of

these two fields was naturally bound to bear fruit. In that light I’ll refer again to the “brouillon projet” I wrote on

the Precursors of Category Theory, where I trace a common theme uniting the function of categorical paradigms from

Aristotle through Peirce to present day logic and math.

• Precursors Of Category Theory

https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory

By way of orientation to the perspective I’ll adopt in reading Marty’s “Podium” paper, here’s the first of the excerpts

I collected, from a primer of category theory on the shelves of every student of the subject, giving a thumbnail

genealogy of categories from classical philosophy to current mathematics.

<QUOTE>

Now the discovery of ideas as general as these is chiefly the willingness to make a brash or speculative abstraction, in

this case supported by the pleasure of purloining words from the philosophers: “Category” from Aristotle and Kant,

“Functor” from Carnap (Logische Syntax der Sprache), and “natural transformation” from then current informal parlance.

🙞 Saunders Mac Lane • Categories for the Working Mathematician, 29–30.

</QUOTE>

Resource

========

• Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/15/survey-of-precursors-of-category-theory-%e2%80%a2-1/

Regards,

Jon

May 7, 2020, 10:15:19 AM5/7/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 17

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/07/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-17/

All,

I've been too immersed in the Peirce List discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” paper to write much here — before I lose

track of what I've been thinking the last several days I'll need to ravel up my off-the-cuff remarks and pen them on the

sleeves of this blog.

Re: Peirce List

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/thrd2.html#00003

Re: Helmut Raulien

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00027.html

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00057.html

Helmut Raulien asked several questions about the composition, irreducibility, and reducibility of relations. For

background on relation composition as Peirce originally treated it, I referred him to Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives,

especially the section titled “The Signs for Multiplication”, along with my commentary linked below.

• Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview

There is also this article:

• Relation Composition

https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition

For readers who want to skip to the chase for the quickest possible overview, the sorts of pictures floating through my

head when I'm thinking about relational composition are the bipartite graph or “bigraph” pictures in the following section.

• Relation Composition • Graph-theoretic Picture

https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition#Graph-theoretic_picture

I see these old articles have grown a bit dusty —

I'll be working to improve the graphics and text as I get time.

Resources

=========

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/07/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-17/

All,

I've been too immersed in the Peirce List discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” paper to write much here — before I lose

track of what I've been thinking the last several days I'll need to ravel up my off-the-cuff remarks and pen them on the

sleeves of this blog.

Re: Peirce List

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/thrd1.html#00020

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/thrd2.html#00003

Re: Helmut Raulien

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00027.html

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00057.html

Helmut Raulien asked several questions about the composition, irreducibility, and reducibility of relations. For

background on relation composition as Peirce originally treated it, I referred him to Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives,

especially the section titled “The Signs for Multiplication”, along with my commentary linked below.

• Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives

https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview

There is also this article:

• Relation Composition

https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition

For readers who want to skip to the chase for the quickest possible overview, the sorts of pictures floating through my

head when I'm thinking about relational composition are the bipartite graph or “bigraph” pictures in the following section.

• Relation Composition • Graph-theoretic Picture

https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition#Graph-theoretic_picture

I see these old articles have grown a bit dusty —

I'll be working to improve the graphics and text as I get time.

Resources

=========

May 12, 2020, 2:56:12 PM5/12/20

to SysSciWG, Structural Modeling, Ontolog Forum, Cybernetic Communications

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 18

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/12/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-18/

Re: Peirce's Categories • 15

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/01/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-15/

“In These Uncertain Times”, as people keep saying, it's become even harder to concentrate than usual and I keep losing

track of tricky points coming up in discussion which cry out for further discussion but then “human voices wake us, and

we drown” or something … So let me go back to the list of loose ends I put together at the first of the month and try to

address a few of them.

Here's one juncture deserving of another look:

• JAS ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00024.html )

• JA ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00026.html )

• HR ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00027.html )

• JAS ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00028.html )

<QUOTE> JAS:

Every proposition is collective and copulative; as I stated in a recent post

( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-03/msg00028.html ) , its

dynamical object is “the entire universe” (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906), which

is “the totality of all real objects” (CP 5.152, EP 2:209, 1903), while its

immediate object is “the logical universe of discourse” (CP 2.323, EP 2:283, 1903).

</QUOTE>

This is a very important point, not the least because of the

light it throws on a question John Corcoran raised on Facebook

( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1861963543939629/ )

and elsewhere (

https://www.academia.edu/s/7ee6dbf0ce/the-principle-of-wholistic-reference-previously-manuscrito-27-2004-159-71-cite-as-manuscrito-30-2007-493-505-p-r

)

as to whether the logical universes of Peirce, or logicians in

general, are conceived as referring to something like a holistic

totality of existence or only a more limited universe of discourse

relevant to a particular discussion. I thought that significant

enough to blog on it here:

• Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 9

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/12/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-9/

<QUOTE> JA:

Incidentally … lack of care in distinguishing different objects of the same signs, in particular, immediate and ultimate

objects and their corresponding universes or object domains, has been the source of many misunderstandings in scattered

discussions on Facebook of late.

</QUOTE>

But then I added:

<QUOTE> JA:

Another issue arising here has to do with the difference between the “dimensionality of a relation” and the “number of

correlates”. Signs may have any number of correlates in the object domain without requiring the dimensionality of the

relevant sign relation to be greater than three. This is one of the consequences of “triadic relation irreducibility”.

</QUOTE

And that raised a number of further replies from HR and objections from JAS … which I'll say more about when I get a chance.

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/12/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-18/

Re: Peirce's Categories • 15

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/01/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-15/

track of tricky points coming up in discussion which cry out for further discussion but then “human voices wake us, and

we drown” or something … So let me go back to the list of loose ends I put together at the first of the month and try to

address a few of them.

Here's one juncture deserving of another look:

• JAS ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00024.html )

• JA ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00026.html )

• HR ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00027.html )

• JAS ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00028.html )

<QUOTE> JAS:

Every proposition is collective and copulative; as I stated in a recent post

( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-03/msg00028.html ) , its

dynamical object is “the entire universe” (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906), which

is “the totality of all real objects” (CP 5.152, EP 2:209, 1903), while its

immediate object is “the logical universe of discourse” (CP 2.323, EP 2:283, 1903).

</QUOTE>

This is a very important point, not the least because of the

light it throws on a question John Corcoran raised on Facebook

( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1861963543939629/ )

and elsewhere (

https://www.academia.edu/s/7ee6dbf0ce/the-principle-of-wholistic-reference-previously-manuscrito-27-2004-159-71-cite-as-manuscrito-30-2007-493-505-p-r

)

as to whether the logical universes of Peirce, or logicians in

general, are conceived as referring to something like a holistic

totality of existence or only a more limited universe of discourse

relevant to a particular discussion. I thought that significant

enough to blog on it here:

• Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 9

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/12/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-9/

<QUOTE> JA:

Incidentally … lack of care in distinguishing different objects of the same signs, in particular, immediate and ultimate

objects and their corresponding universes or object domains, has been the source of many misunderstandings in scattered

discussions on Facebook of late.

</QUOTE>

But then I added:

<QUOTE> JA:

Another issue arising here has to do with the difference between the “dimensionality of a relation” and the “number of

correlates”. Signs may have any number of correlates in the object domain without requiring the dimensionality of the

relevant sign relation to be greater than three. This is one of the consequences of “triadic relation irreducibility”.

</QUOTE

And that raised a number of further replies from HR and objections from JAS … which I'll say more about when I get a chance.

May 13, 2020, 2:16:02 PM5/13/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 19

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/13/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-19/

More discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C.S.Peirce

Another point where the onrush of discussion and the impact of worldly distractions caused my train of thought to jump

the track is here:

<QUOTE> RM:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00054.html

First I note that the formulation “3ns involves 2ns, which involves 1ns” is very dangerous [as] it forgets that 2ns has

its autonomy and 1ns too. If you look at the podium [one] remains in the inner cylinder. It seems to me that Peirce's

reproach to Hegel is:

“He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other words, he has committed the trifling oversight of

forgetting that there is a real world with real actions and reactions. Rather a serious oversight that.”

It is therefore important to prefer “3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns involves 1ns” which preserves the autonomy of

the Peircian categories so as not to encourage the idea of a possible peircean hegelianism.

</QUOTE>

<QUOTE> JA:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00056.html

I've been working on a comment about your first point but I'll post it … when and if I manage to put it in respectable

shape. Just by way of a hint for now, the issue turns on whether we take involves or presupposes to be a dyadic

relation and a transitive one at that, as we would if we pass from “3 involves 2” and “2 involves 1” to the conclusion

“3 involves 1”. That may be true for some concepts of involution or presupposition but I think the operative relation

in this case is a thoroughly irreducible triadic relation, one whose properties do not reduce to the composition of two

dyadic relations.

</QUOTE>

I think it will take a little more work to get clear about this.

I will go back to the draft remarks I was working on and see if

I can bring them to bear on the question.

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/13/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-19/

More discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C.S.Peirce

Another point where the onrush of discussion and the impact of worldly distractions caused my train of thought to jump

the track is here:

<QUOTE> RM:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00054.html

First I note that the formulation “3ns involves 2ns, which involves 1ns” is very dangerous [as] it forgets that 2ns has

its autonomy and 1ns too. If you look at the podium [one] remains in the inner cylinder. It seems to me that Peirce's

reproach to Hegel is:

“He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other words, he has committed the trifling oversight of

forgetting that there is a real world with real actions and reactions. Rather a serious oversight that.”

It is therefore important to prefer “3ns involves 2ns and 1ns, while 2ns involves 1ns” which preserves the autonomy of

the Peircian categories so as not to encourage the idea of a possible peircean hegelianism.

</QUOTE>

<QUOTE> JA:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00056.html

I've been working on a comment about your first point but I'll post it … when and if I manage to put it in respectable

shape. Just by way of a hint for now, the issue turns on whether we take involves or presupposes to be a dyadic

relation and a transitive one at that, as we would if we pass from “3 involves 2” and “2 involves 1” to the conclusion

“3 involves 1”. That may be true for some concepts of involution or presupposition but I think the operative relation

in this case is a thoroughly irreducible triadic relation, one whose properties do not reduce to the composition of two

dyadic relations.

</QUOTE>

I think it will take a little more work to get clear about this.

I will go back to the draft remarks I was working on and see if

I can bring them to bear on the question.

May 15, 2020, 7:48:48 AM5/15/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 20

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/14/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-20/

More discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C.S.Peirce

Understanding another person's thought can be difficult. Understanding the way another understands a third person's

thought, all the more so, even if that third person is not so formidable a thinker as Charles Sanders Peirce. Measures

of misunderstanding may be moderated if all thoughts and thinkers are guided by common objectives but the proof of the

pudding is in the partaking, as they say. So let's step carefully and focus on the task of determining whether category

theories, old and new, make good tools for understanding sign relations.

http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif

The interaction recorded in my last post

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/13/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-19/

continued as follows:

<QUOTE> RM:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00061.html

I do not see how we can talk here about an operative relationship that would be a triad relationship. It is not

anything other than the composition of two morphisms and I do not ask for more. 3, 2, and 1 are the “place names” and

“involves” are arrow names that I usually call alpha and beta. Now if you think about the determinations in the sign, I

have always assumed after much study of the 76 definitions, this idea that the composition of applications captures the

presence in the mind of each of the elements of the sign, in such a way that they are themselves ipso facto connected by

a triadic relationship. There is a relationship of tricoexistence that is established as in this case evoked by Peirce:

“It predicates the genuinely Triadic relationship of tricoexistence, P and Q and R coexist” (CP 2.318, unfortunately

there is a hole in my PDF of CP right after and I [left] my paper edition at the library of my university, inaccessible

at the moment).

We have a mutual incomprehension?

</QUOTE>

<QUOTE edited> JA:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00072.html

I don't often join the debates over sign classification so frequently animating the animadversions of the Peirce List.

As more the observer than the participant I see the same pattern over and over, with occasional hints but never any hue

of resolution fast enough to last and satisfy every dyehard.

Situations of that sort are no novelty in philosophy, or politics, or even math and science on occasion. And when they

occur it is usually because the “place to stand” from which the subject appears in its proper light has yet to be

reached by every viewer.

So I'll back up a little and say how I see things from where I am.

</QUOTE>

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/14/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-20/

More discussion of Robert Marty's “Podium” diagram:

https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C.S.Peirce

thought, all the more so, even if that third person is not so formidable a thinker as Charles Sanders Peirce. Measures

of misunderstanding may be moderated if all thoughts and thinkers are guided by common objectives but the proof of the

pudding is in the partaking, as they say. So let's step carefully and focus on the task of determining whether category

theories, old and new, make good tools for understanding sign relations.

http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif

The interaction recorded in my last post

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/13/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-19/

continued as follows:

<QUOTE> RM:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00061.html

I do not see how we can talk here about an operative relationship that would be a triad relationship. It is not

anything other than the composition of two morphisms and I do not ask for more. 3, 2, and 1 are the “place names” and

“involves” are arrow names that I usually call alpha and beta. Now if you think about the determinations in the sign, I

have always assumed after much study of the 76 definitions, this idea that the composition of applications captures the

presence in the mind of each of the elements of the sign, in such a way that they are themselves ipso facto connected by

a triadic relationship. There is a relationship of tricoexistence that is established as in this case evoked by Peirce:

“It predicates the genuinely Triadic relationship of tricoexistence, P and Q and R coexist” (CP 2.318, unfortunately

there is a hole in my PDF of CP right after and I [left] my paper edition at the library of my university, inaccessible

at the moment).

We have a mutual incomprehension?

</QUOTE>

<QUOTE edited> JA:

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00072.html

I don't often join the debates over sign classification so frequently animating the animadversions of the Peirce List.

As more the observer than the participant I see the same pattern over and over, with occasional hints but never any hue

of resolution fast enough to last and satisfy every dyehard.

Situations of that sort are no novelty in philosophy, or politics, or even math and science on occasion. And when they

occur it is usually because the “place to stand” from which the subject appears in its proper light has yet to be

reached by every viewer.

So I'll back up a little and say how I see things from where I am.

</QUOTE>

Jun 25, 2020, 12:34:55 PM6/25/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Peirce's Categories • 21

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/25/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-21/

Robert, All ...

Let us go back to a point where paths diverged in the yarrow wood and a lot of synchronicity was lost …

Variant understandings of words like axiom, definition, predicate, proposition, proof, relation, theory, and the like

make mutual understanding difficult. For example, when I mention Peirce's definition of a sign, many people will bring

to mind a long list of short statements Peirce made in describing the properties of signs, and when I refer to Peirce's

theory of signs, many people will bring to mind the entire corpus of Peirce's writings on signs, so far as they know it,

augmented perhaps with reliable reports of statements he may have made about signs.

There are fields of study where such expansive understandings of definitions and theories are the prevailing ones,

perhaps the only feasible ones. One example would be scriptural hermeneutics, where the full sense of a word's meaning

is determined by its use in every context where it occurs. Thus the use of concordances to bring the diversity of

contextual meanings into harmony. We plow this field in a hermeneutic circle, according each bit of authoritative text

equal priority, none privileged above the other, as if equidistant from a central point radiating a pervasive message.

It's all you can do when there's nothing but the text in view.

Curiously enough, the branch of mathematical logic known as model theory sets out with an equally expansive view, taking

a maximally inclusive definition of theory as its initial point of departure and defining a theory as an arbitrary set

of sentences from a formal language. Naturally, logical and mathematical attention almost immediately shifts to more

focused spheres of theory, as indicated in the following from a standard textbook.

<QUOTE>

A set Γ of sentences is called a “theory”. A theory is said to be “closed” iff every consequence of Γ belongs to Γ. A

set Δ of sentences is said to be a “set of axioms for” a theory Γ iff Γ and \Delta have the same consequences. A theory

is called “finitely axiomatizable” iff it has a finite set of axioms. Since we may form the conjunction of a finite set

of axioms, a finitely axiomatizable theory actually always has a single axiom. The set Γ' of all consequences of Γ is

the unique closed theory which has Γ as a set of axioms.

(Chang and Keisler, p. 12).

</QUOTE>

That's all well and good as far as esoteric technical usage goes but outside those cloisters I would recommend using the

word “corpus” when we want to talk about an arbitrary set of sentences or texts and to reserve the word “theory” for

those corpora possessing more differentiated and substantial anatomies than a mere hermeneutic blastula.

Reference

=========

• Chang, C.C., and Keisler, H.J. (1973), Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

(p. 12) https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Mathematical_Notes#MOD._Note_14

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/25/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-21/

Robert, All ...

Let us go back to a point where paths diverged in the yarrow wood and a lot of synchronicity was lost …

Variant understandings of words like axiom, definition, predicate, proposition, proof, relation, theory, and the like

make mutual understanding difficult. For example, when I mention Peirce's definition of a sign, many people will bring

to mind a long list of short statements Peirce made in describing the properties of signs, and when I refer to Peirce's

theory of signs, many people will bring to mind the entire corpus of Peirce's writings on signs, so far as they know it,

augmented perhaps with reliable reports of statements he may have made about signs.

There are fields of study where such expansive understandings of definitions and theories are the prevailing ones,

perhaps the only feasible ones. One example would be scriptural hermeneutics, where the full sense of a word's meaning

is determined by its use in every context where it occurs. Thus the use of concordances to bring the diversity of

contextual meanings into harmony. We plow this field in a hermeneutic circle, according each bit of authoritative text

equal priority, none privileged above the other, as if equidistant from a central point radiating a pervasive message.

It's all you can do when there's nothing but the text in view.

Curiously enough, the branch of mathematical logic known as model theory sets out with an equally expansive view, taking

a maximally inclusive definition of theory as its initial point of departure and defining a theory as an arbitrary set

of sentences from a formal language. Naturally, logical and mathematical attention almost immediately shifts to more

focused spheres of theory, as indicated in the following from a standard textbook.

<QUOTE>

A set Γ of sentences is called a “theory”. A theory is said to be “closed” iff every consequence of Γ belongs to Γ. A

set Δ of sentences is said to be a “set of axioms for” a theory Γ iff Γ and \Delta have the same consequences. A theory

is called “finitely axiomatizable” iff it has a finite set of axioms. Since we may form the conjunction of a finite set

of axioms, a finitely axiomatizable theory actually always has a single axiom. The set Γ' of all consequences of Γ is

the unique closed theory which has Γ as a set of axioms.

(Chang and Keisler, p. 12).

</QUOTE>

That's all well and good as far as esoteric technical usage goes but outside those cloisters I would recommend using the

word “corpus” when we want to talk about an arbitrary set of sentences or texts and to reserve the word “theory” for

those corpora possessing more differentiated and substantial anatomies than a mere hermeneutic blastula.

Reference

=========

• Chang, C.C., and Keisler, H.J. (1973), Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

(p. 12) https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Mathematical_Notes#MOD._Note_14

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu