RE: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce - reply to Mike
bruces...@cox.net
I do want to continue pushing the essential factors in this new closed loop integral model. This is hard to do outside the co-creative context of “community” – and I’ve been putting a lot of time recently into lining up factors and facets. But it’s a handful, and one major reason it is so challenging has to do with “linear sequencing.” I am reminded of the book from years ago, “Plans and the Structure of Behaviour”, from 1960, by George Miller (of wordnet), Eugene Galanter and Karl Pribram, which I would probably group in the same class as the work by Herbert Simon (Sciences of the Artificial, “nearly-decomposable hierarchy”, etc.) , as a pioneering philosophical contribution to the computer science revolution.
Plans have to be coherently sequenced to be algorithmic and executable. Something similar is true of highly integral new ideas, as all their many “parts” must be combined into a linear sequential form to be expressed in writing.
The closed loop model combines many different factors and technical areas, and they are all contingent at the same time. I’ve been looking for precedents (the “FRISCO” project mentioned here recently might be one), and Mike’s project on Hierarchy and Peirce might be another. A hot brain-storming session might be very helpful – but that’s hard to come by.
In a following posting, I expect to go over this “strip” model and list as many of its attributes and interpretations as I can come up with -- then show how this model supports a broad theory of epistemology – all the basic definitions and objects, terms like “class” and “dimension” and “metaphor” and “identical” – and the foundational definitions of arithmetic and the concept of “number” – and from there, provide what looks to me like a comprehensive definition of “meaning” as abstract ideas are put together in symbols to communicate human intention. This is all a kind of compositional semantics which I think is do-able in one integral frame – the closed loop -- but if so, it’s pretty awesome.
Then this strip – now defined as containing in general form everything we know about epistemology and semantics and hierarchy and abstraction and taxonomy and conceptual structure – goes through this mysterious “twist” which “closes the space” and forms this amazing “closed loop” which seems to contain all of cognitive science within its single boundary. All elements within that boundary are defined as “intervals” – bounded ranges with lowest and highest values in some dimension. By virtue of “the twist”, the entire loop becomes a single boundary – a single “edge” -- which contains nested it (bounded within it) within all possible taxonomic distinctions in their general form. As a single boundary, the entire structure takes the same form as “the real number line” – it IS “the continuum” in a closed loop form. When seen in the flat plane, the “upper ontology” is the unbounded infinite and the ultimate meaning of “unit”, and the lowest level approaching infinitesimal differentiation, and the taxonomic categories we want to position at the bottom of our taxonomic hierarchy. When we close the loop, the infinite and the infinitesimal are mapped straight into each other as one continuous edge – where their differences are only apparent when viewed in the flat two dimensional perspective. Rotated through the twist, all the differences disappear and all that remains is unity. I think this is analogous to the Buddhist cosmology of “the beginningless universe” – maybe it’s the same idea. There are books out there on the subject “A universe from nothing”. I think these are all related.
But for right now, with apologies for wordiness, a reply to Mike.
*********************
Dear Mike – thanks for posting the link to your article, and for responding.
I am glad this is a line of discourse you want to pursue (and have pursued since at least 1994 as your link indicates). I'm happy to engage on any questions or topics; there are many other Peirce aficionados on these lists that also have helpful insights. For now, I only comment on one of your points below:
Much appreciated. My apologies for a rather long-winded response, but I am feeling a lot of pent-up creative potential that is not so easy to unfold. Perhaps “creative dialogue” is a required catalyst.
My own view is that Peirce's universal categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness provide this level of "absolute abstraction [that] exists in nature". I don't know if you realize that some of your earlier references to Ogden and Richards were actually a paraphrase of Peirce's insights.
No, I did not know that. I was quoting John Sowa, who of course is a student of Peirce.
My own research focus has been on trying to understand the 'mindset' of Peirce's universal categories, expressed in perhaps a 100 different ways in his writings, that sets a frame of reference for tackling knowledge representation (epistemological) questions at virtually any level. Ogden and Richards picked up on one with respect to meaning, but there are other examples galore across Peirce's writings.
Hmm. I’d guess that taming that “100 different ways” is a handful. Peirce brings a lot of power and philosophic insight – but, I would say – it’s defined in a pre-computer mind-set.
What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a way to break away from either-or Cartesian mindsets that always pit issues as win-lose propositions, and ignore the "fact" that one can both be a realist and an idealist.
I am all for that! We need “reconciliation” across these seeming differences – that I would like to think can be vanquished with a sufficiently broad and inclusive theoretical vision.
By accepting the reality of absolute chance we are also removing false dichotomies between determinism and evolution. As with wave-particle duality or quantum v classic physics, Cartesian thinking is a cultural and intellectual posture that leaves us stymied and frustrated. I much prefer the trichotomous view of actuality bracketed by chance and continuity, the essence of Peirce's universal categories.
That sounds intriguing, but I can’t say I understand it. “Actuality bracketed by chance and continuity”. I started using the word “actuality” very early in my own explorations, and it seems a very useful word in a scientific or empirical context. I started exploring the idea of “the actual number line” as a less abstract expression of “the real number line”, which has always seemed “unscientific” to me (you can’t actually draw one – so “the real number line is not actual”)
BTW, there is no reason why this viewpoint cannot inform the structure and basis of a top-level (upper) ontology.
Yes, let’s boldly leap into this challenge. It’s an ancient universal issue ripe for harvesting. Maybe it’s the most essential issue confronting the survival of the human race. As I see it, we either figure this out together, or we fold our tents….
(One that I humbly feels offers an integrative framework for ANY knowledge graph or ontology.) That is exactly the approach we have taken with our KBpedia knowledge structure, and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology (KKO).
Thank you for putting this out there, Mike. Let’s keep up the power of “integrative frameworks” – taking on and integrating all comers. All of these factors and perspectives that we have been considering have their constituencies and their motivation. The “either/or I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong choices” are silly and short-sighted. Each of these special perspectives has its purpose, and should fit into a larger catalog or typology – probably defined as a spectrum.
So, with again some apologies for wordiness, a response.
****
In this comment, I want to address issues you raise in your reply.
In fact, I though I have been on Ontolog for years, I was never really a student of Peirce, so I appreciate your comments. My own approach to this subject began with my intuitive/diagrammatic approach, and I very early discovered a 1968 book by Scientific American editor Martin Gardner entitled Logic Machines, Diagrams and Boolean Algebra – which has been reprinted several times, originally appearing in 1958 under the title Logic Machine and Diagrams, and beginning with the same article on 13th century visionary theorist Ramon Lull.
http://originresearch.com/docs/Gardner_Martin_Logic_Machines_and_Diagrams.pdf
Lull’s “Great Art” (“Ars Magna”) is somewhat related to the diagrammatic approach that emerged for me, in that it is essentially circular. John Sowa cites Lull on his website and in his bibliography, and statues of Lull are found in several places in the Barcelona region of Spain – I saw them in the subways and at the Montserrat Monastery, showing his “staircase” or “ladder”, which seems very analogous to the “levels” that we talk about in hierarchy theory. There are many images of all of this to be quickly found on the internet.
So I tended to move directly from deep intuition into computer science and mathematical models. I wanted to use the exacting language of mathematics and computers from the beginning. I felt I was under Husserl’s command that “philosophy must be made scientific.” I was looking at basic elements of computer operating systems, like the linear/hierarchical nesting of folders, and insofar as possible, I wanted to stick with highly linear forms, that could be immediately interpreted in the language of finite math – unambiguous concepts like “state” or “matrix” or “digital”. I was looking at “analog to digital conversion” and this seemed essential to the psychological “chunking” effect that created composite “wholes” and abstractions from “parts” in gestalt psychology. “Reality is continuous, but we parse it into digital chunks (words)” – so how does that approximation or round-off work? I tended to take a very linear/digital/matrix-based/rows-and-columns approach to any kind of conceptual structure. Another book that influenced me was the comprehensive overview “Programming Languages, Information Structures and Machine Organization” by Peter Wegner. Seeing that book, I immediately began to understand “concepts” as “information structures” – and I began exploring what those “information structures” (or “data structures”) might be. Wikipedia does offer a pretty good list of data structures. Can we build “all conceptual form” out of these elements? I was and am inclined to say “yes we can” – and the concept of dimensionality seems to show how.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_structures
So, all of this is very digital/finite-state matrix oriented. I developed a mathematical concept called “synthetic dimensionality” which enables the construction of highly composite abstract objects from lower-level objects in a strict linear cascade. So, this computer-science approach might explain why it is difficult for me to fully grasp the “firstness, secondness, thirdness” approach that is outlined in the list you present Mike, here:
https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
You summarize:
The three constituents of Peirce's trichotomy, which are keyed into the table entries above, are what he called simply the Three Categories, or the universal categories. These three categories can be roughly summarized as:
Firstness [1ns] — these are possibilities or potentials, the basic forces or qualities that combine together or interact in various ways to enable the real things we perceive in the world, such as matter, life and ideas. These are the unrealized building blocks, or elements, the essences or attributes or possible juxtapositions. They are not divisible, what Peirce called indecomposables, since they are integral qualities or ideas in themselves
Secondness [2ns] — these are the particular realized things or concepts in the world, what we can perceive, point to and describe. As instantiated, they are actuals. A particular is also known as an event, entity, instance or individual
Thirdness [3ns] — these are the laws, habits, regularities and continuities that may be generalized from particulars or possibilities. All generals — what are also known as classes, kinds or types — belong to this category. The process of finding and deriving these generalities also leads to new insights or emergent properties, which continue to fuel knowledge discovery. Insights arising from Thirdness enable us to further explore and understand things, and is a driving force for further categorization.
Understanding, inquiry and knowledge require this irreducible structure. Connections, meaning and communication depend on all three components, standing in relation to one another and subject to interpretation by multiple agents. (Traditional classification schemes more often have a dyadic or dichotomous nature, which does not support the richer views of context and interpretation inherent in the Peircean view.)
It would be very helpful for me to see these Peircean abstractions illustrated with examples.
My sense is that Peirce is not really taking an information-structure approach to the creation of categories and abstract objects. He is saying “these things exists in the world” – “forces and qualities” – that “combine or interact in various ways” to enable human beings to perceive “real things in the world”. They are “unrealized building blocks” (I don’t really understand what that means) – but they support the perception of “real things we see in the world”, such as matter, life and ideas.
So, somehow ideas (“symbolic structures defined in language”) emerge under the influence of these primary forces.
QUESTION: where in the larger hierarchy of reality are these objects located? Is it possible to define how they are constructed? You are saying they are simply primary non-differentiable non-decomposable units. What is an example? An idea? I am finding this very difficult to understand, and it seems deeply vague. Please clarify.
My own approach is to understand the emergence of all ideas and concepts and “named objects in the world” as originally emerging from the continuum by a process of “motivated distinction”. Human beings individually or collectively detect some facet of reality which seems significant (“bees create honey, which we like to eat, but bees can sting, which we don’t like, so let us together codify some principles for successful and happy gathering of honey” – and all of this we will organize in some shareable form of symbolic representation, like diagrams or language).
“Secondness” is about particular things we perceive in the world. Hmm. We were looking at hierarchy as a deeply nested category system for all things in the world, with specific instances and “real world objects” at the bottom of this abstract cascade. Real world objects are not abstract. They are concrete. They have weight, size, physical properties. Rocks, trees, people, automobiles – oceans, rivers, mountains. In some sense, we can define or understand these objects as “bounded facets of reality” which we can name. When borders become vague – we can handle that (Barry Smith has written extensively on this subject, including his article http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/fiat.pdf on “Fiat and Bona Fide Boundaries”. Does a mountain have a boundary? Does a river? How to we connect this process of “fiat boundary” to the extremely fine-grained distinctions introduced into the world by Benoit Mandelbrot and the theory of fractals and the near-infinite length of coastlines or natural boundaries? Smith clarifies this issue, probably in terms related to Peirce’s definition. “Just because the boundary is vague does not mean it is not real.”)
But right now, in the context of hierarchy – these “real objects with fuzzy boundaries” are located somewhere near the bottom of our hierarchical taxonomy of all things. What has “secondness” got to do with that?
And now “thirdness” – which you define as “laws, habits, regularities, continuities” -- maybe we call these “patterns”? – which are generalized from particulars. These “objects” seem to be located higher in the taxonomy. They are broader general principles which describe or govern the characteristics of objects lower in the hierarchy.
https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
Continuing to contemplate this framework, just to understand it in terms of its indentation, like an outline processor, its three top levels seem to be
- Monads
- Particulars
- Generals
If this is in the ballpark, what I would do with this is define “monad” as any kind of unit in a nested cascade, where it could be understood in Arthur Koestler’s terms as a “holon” – “Janus-faced” – such that seen “looking down the hierarchy” it is a “part” of a larger whole, and seen “looking up the hierarchy” it is itself a “whole”.
But I continue with an information structure model that want to represent every object in the case in terms of its properties and facets – its dimensions – which distinguish it from every other object. “A car is not a cat” – and we say precisely how this is true. But tigers and kittens are cats – and we can say precisely why – with dimensional precision.
So I see this entire hierarchical structure as a linear cascade of “holons” (“monads”) organized as a linearly sequential array of levels ranging from particulars to generals.
Generally, I personally want to resist ontological models that are defined by personal fiat and the opinion of some brilliant philosopher, whether that be Aristotle’s Categories or Sowa’s Diamond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle)
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm
I want to see an “absolute” approach, with no arbitrary stipulation or idiosyncratic personality.
In this theory of the world,
“In the beginning was the undifferentiated continuum, and the continuum was parsed by human motivation and necessity, and distinction was born, and from distinctions under motivation were all things constructed.”
And in this framework are included all of those helpful and insightful things listed by Aristotle or Sowa.
For me, the essential form is “the differentiation of the unit interval” – which takes this general form, in a potentially infinite cascade descending cascade:
Or compare – KBPedia Knowledge Graph, from https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/ -- rotated for horizontal comparison.
The point I want to emphasize is the vertical (Y) dimension – which ranges from “more general and abstract and universal to less general and universal and abstract.” This principle is common to all hierarchy, and it’s my inclination to see this simple common ground as highly significant and empowering. Let’s not get tangled up in complexity.
These two below objects take the same general form, in both the X and Y axes. I’d say the KBPedia graph is a specific or concrete instance of the broader general form – though clearly, this is a gross oversimplification regarding specific details.
The span from A to B contains the full range of nested objects, and the levels of specificity or abstraction descends from higher to lower in the A-C / B-D dimension
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
bruces...@cox.net / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com; bruces...@cox.net; peir...@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi Bruce,
I am glad this is a line of discourse you want to pursue (and have pursued since at least 1994 as your link indicates). I'm happy to engage on any questions or topics; there are many other Peirce afficiandos on these lists that also have helpful insights. For now, I only comment on one of your points below:
On 3/4/2021 9:31 AM, bruces...@cox.net wrote:
Wow. I love this. I've been writing on this subject forever -- saying more or less the same things and citing the same authors -- e.g., Herbert Simon. I'm going to print your article, Mike, and take a close look at it. Back in the early days, I bought every book there was on Hierarchy. You make basic points in your opening that I’d say pave the way towards a very powerful general theory of epistemology.
The basic themes you outline in this article are at the essence of my notion of “Closed Loop Interval Ontology” – which is hierarchical exactly as you describe, with the addition that the framework is defined as a closed loop interconnecting these “levels” into a single closed mathematical structure.
My early stuff on this subject is here: http://originresearch.com
The trick here seems to be – that this thesis is so powerful, it becomes combinatorically explosive – heading towards the fabled “theory of everything” – maybe in explicit epistemological detail.
Interesting that you say that “natural hierarchies are real” – which opens the way to some additional complexity or levels of inclusion. Maybe there is a “hierarchical relationship” across levels of reality, such that the kind of practical-real-world “reality” defined by Barry Smith can be mapped directly into an absolutely abstract model which I would say is a “science of the artificial”, as Herbert Simon might have described it. “Does absolute abstraction exist in nature”?
My own view is that Peirce's universal categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness provide this level of "absolute abstraction [that] exists in nature". I don't know if you realize that some of your earlier references to Ogden and Richards were actually a paraphrase of Peirce's insights. My own research focus has been on trying to understand the 'mindset' of Peirce's universal categories, expressed in perhaps a 100 different ways in his writings, that sets a frame of reference for tackling knowledge representation (epistemological) questions at virtually any level. Ogden and Richards picked up on one with respect to meaning, but there are other examples galore across Peirce's writings.
What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a way to break away from either-or Cartesian mindsets that always pit issues as win-lose propositions, and ignore the "fact" that one can both be a realist and an idealist. By accepting the reality of absolute chance we are also removing false dichotomies between determinism and evolution. As with wave-particle duality or quantum v classic physics, Cartesian thinking is a cultural and intellectual posture that leaves us stymied and frustrated. I much prefer the trichotomous view of actuality bracketed by chance and continuity, the essence of Peirce's universal categories.
BTW, there is no reason why this viewpoint can not inform the structure and basis of a top-level (upper) ontology. (One that I humbly feels offers an integrative framework for ANY knowledge graph or ontology.) That is exactly the approach we have taken with our KBpedia knowledge structure, and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology (KKO).
Best, Mike
Fascinating article and project, Mike. A lot to talk about.
Thanks!
- Bruce
Hierarchies — real or artificial — abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more ‘general’ is also more ‘abstract’. The etymology of the word hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a broad historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in library and information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies, knowledge graphs, and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have many flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects the dimensions of that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Sanders Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards such as RDF or OWL reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies involving the nexus of chance, evolution, entropy, free energy, and information theory.
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
bruces...@cox.net / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM
To: peir...@list.iupui.edu; ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi All,
I am pleased my open-access paper on hierarchy in knowledge systems, as informed by my understanding of CS Peirce, has been published by IEKO:
https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy. I hope you enjoy!
Thanks, Mike
--
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 ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com.
Mauro Bertani
Then this strip – now defined as containing in general form everything we know about epistemology and semantics and hierarchy and abstraction and taxonomy and conceptual structure – goes through this mysterious “twist” which “closes the space” and forms this amazing “closed loop” which seems to contain all of cognitive science within its single boundary. All elements within that boundary are defined as “intervals” – bounded ranges with lowest and highest values in some dimension. By virtue of “the twist”, the entire loop becomes a single boundary – a single “edge” -- which contains nested it (bounded within it) within all possible taxonomic distinctions in their general form. As a single boundary, the entire structure takes the same form as “the real number line” – it IS “the continuum” in a closed loop form. When seen in the flat plane, the “upper ontology” is the unbounded infinite and the ultimate meaning of “unit”, and the lowest level approaching infinitesimal differentiation, and the taxonomic categories we want to position at the bottom of our taxonomic hierarchy. When we close the loop, the infinite and the infinitesimal are mapped straight into each other as one continuous edge – where their differences are only apparent when viewed in the flat two dimensional perspective. Rotated through the twist, all the differences disappear and all that remains is unity. I think this is analogous to the Buddhist cosmology of “the beginningless universe” – maybe it’s the same idea. There are books out there on the subject “A universe from nothing”. I think these are all related.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net.
Allen and Fergusson
Ravi Sharma
- Monads
- Particulars
- Generals
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com.
bruces...@cox.net
Dear Dr. Sharma –
Thanks for this comment and inquiry. Since you mention your background in Indian philosophy and metaphysics, I thought I would mention that I have a background in “interfaith”, and have been personally influenced by eastern/Indian philosophy, which does help my understanding of universal ontology.
And I took a few minutes to make this simple diagram, which I constructed at the URL http://origin.org/ontology/aaaiamchart.cfm.
It’s an attempt to describe “Brahman” or the absolute Godhead/One which contains all and from which emanates all, and its mediated link across levels to the individual human being. This link is essentially hierarchical. This diagram shows the absolute Godhead or “One” mediated through “the avatar” and descending from there to the individual human being, who through the practice of virtue endeavors to “come into perfectly centered alignment” with the universal form of the Godhead – thus “becoming one with God”, as the same universal form of One is reproduced at all levels (“as above, so below”).
For reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
From the point of view of semantic ontology, I would say that the upper level – Brahman – might be interpreted as ONE understood as “the continuum” or “the absolute unit” – which is differentiated into “everything”.
This above diagram is about “energy” or “spirit” – but we could make a similar diagram about the differentiation of ONE into MANY – and explore the derivation of all categories and distinctions and nested levels of classification and taxonomies.
Mike’s KKO ontological cascade of 171 categories based on Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness is here, defined in a strict 7-level hierarchy, is doing something somewhat similar, as “all categories” are derived from an initial top level. https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
His knowledge graph is here: https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/
I don’t really understand the Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness cascade – but I am guessing that what Mike would suggest is that this is a skeleton set of categories, into which “everything anybody can think of” could be filed or organized.
And “Firstness Secondness Thirdness” are primary categories of reality that Peirce believed he saw around him in existence.
If we were to descend below the first seven levels, maybe we would be drilling down into “everything”.
I wonder if these two ideas are really pointing at the same thing, or something very similar or “topologically isomorphic”? Both images shown in “from universal to particular” (“from higher to lower”) orientation.
https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
This shows the Monads – Particulars – Generals partition, in the range Monads to Generals
https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com.
bruces...@cox.net
Mauro – I like this model you suggest, and the links you point to.
I want to find a single closed algebraic form from which I can derive all semantic structure – and my guess is, that process will probably look like the kind of graph you drew. Or include those kinds of elements.
I want to derive all the basic kinds of mathematical and semantic analysis from a common “code base” – a common underlying/fundamental partition from which/though which all coded distinctions and compositional structures can be derived, or from which they can be constructed – and on the basis of which, all mathematical computation can flow.
Speaking of lexicographical order, an important theme is that it is about ”total order” – not “partial order”.
So – an instinctive guiding principles is
Create a generalized extremely simple master form that is in “absolute order” – everything “100% linear in every dimension” – and show how this form contains everything in general terms – and then show how it also contains along the way all conceivable “partially ordered” structures.
I’m not sure if something like this is what Mike is talking about when he says
Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have many flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally.
“Subsumption relations with many flexible variants”
So this seems exciting: nest all partial orders within absolute order.
We need to understand “the whole” in a 100% ordered way – an example of “the whole” perhaps being something like “the human body” (Leonardo’s “Vitruvian Man”) or maybe the global ecology/economy.
Define “absolute order” over something that complex, maybe around the concept of “homeostasis” – the governing principle that keeps the interdependent moving parts in balance.
So, in this case “absolute order” does not mean “top-down fascist authoritarianism” or ramrod do-it-my-way dictatorship. It means “Governance OF the Whole BY the Whole.” Idealized global democracy in balance, replicated at all levels of scale.
Mauro, I need to give your interesting idea more thought.
- Bruce
Hierarchical Cantor set in absolute linear order
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
bruces...@cox.net / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mauro Bertani
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:38 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Cc: peir...@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce - reply to Mike
Hi Mike,
about what you wrote
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30, <bruces...@cox.net> wrote:
Then this strip – now defined as containing in general form everything we know about epistemology and semantics and hierarchy and abstraction and taxonomy and conceptual structure – goes through this mysterious “twist” which “closes the space” and forms this amazing “closed loop” which seems to contain all of cognitive science within its single boundary. All elements within that boundary are defined as “intervals” – bounded ranges with lowest and highest values in some dimension. By virtue of “the twist”, the entire loop becomes a single boundary – a single “edge” -- which contains nested it (bounded within it) within all possible taxonomic distinctions in their general form. As a single boundary, the entire structure takes the same form as “the real number line” – it IS “the continuum” in a closed loop form. When seen in the flat plane, the “upper ontology” is the unbounded infinite and the ultimate meaning of “unit”, and the lowest level approaching infinitesimal differentiation, and the taxonomic categories we want to position at the bottom of our taxonomic hierarchy. When we close the loop, the infinite and the infinitesimal are mapped straight into each other as one continuous edge – where their differences are only apparent when viewed in the flat two dimensional perspective. Rotated through the twist, all the differences disappear and all that remains is unity. I think this is analogous to the Buddhist cosmology of “the beginningless universe” – maybe it’s the same idea. There are books out there on the subject “A universe from nothing”. I think these are all related.
I made a theory that partly reflects your vision. Very briefly it is represented by this diagram
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com.
Mike Bergman
Hi All,
Given the number of questions regarding Peirce's universal categories in relation to my hierarchy paper, I have split out my response to them separately and have renamed the thread. I will follow up this thread with a separate thread on Bruce's 'twisted, closed loop' idea.
It is clear that Peirce's research and method of inquiry were
based on what he proudly classed as an 'architectonic' [1]. For
me, it is one of the most appealing aspects of Peirce since it
reflects his commitment to applying consistent logic and methods
in all intellectual endeavors. Pragmatism has perhaps survived as
the most often-cited basis of Peirce's architectonic. I agree with
this in the context of praxis, but I have suspected for many years
that the root fount of Peirce's approach is in his triadism, what
he himself jocularly called his 'triadomany' [2].
His universal categories are the root of the root. When last
published [3], I had assembled up more than sixty instances where
Peirce applied triadic splits; I have perhaps two dozen more
needing a published update. All representations across these
examples have a context to derive their meaning. Yet, still, there
is a character across the categories of Firstness (1ns),
Secondness (2ns) and Thirdness (3ns) that bring a unique feel and
sense for each, generalizations emerging from the vague.
An author's release of my book chapter on Peirce's universal categories is available for free from my Web site [3]. Table 6-2 and its table notes, in particular, provide a flavor for how Perice's triadic categories were expressed by him in scores of examples. For example, in the case of 'reality', I would surmise Peirce to describe it as 'chance' (1ns), actuality (2ns), and 'continuity' (3ns). More than 60 other examples and variants are provided in the table.
In the case for the KBpedia Knowledge
Ontology (KKO), the context is 'knowledge representation'.
That scope is close to being the same as 'everything there is',
but the expression and organization need to be geared to logical
constructs that are consistently used so as to be able to be
reasoned over.
In the KKO context, the triadic structure is 'monads' (1ns), 'particulars' (2ns) and 'generals' (3ns). 'Monads' are the possible ideas or attributes about things, but they are unexpressed. I have also called monads 'unrealized building blocks'. They are pregnant with potential, but as monads are the pure qualities, not yet embodied. Of course, once you try to represent or capture the idea of something like 'redness', you have given it expression so that it is no longer 1ns. Monads in the KKO context are best scoped as the unconnected relations between things and the unembodied attributes of things.
'Particulars' (2ns) are the events and entities relevant to the
scope of the current domain. Every particular is individuated. How
to categorize 'attributes' into 'particulars', 'particulars' into
'generals', and 'generals' into more abstract 'generals' is the
motivator for my paper on hierarchy.
'Generals' (3ns) are the types, classes, generalizations, abstractions, rules, laws and processes relating to the nature of reality and interactions. Thinking and continuity are 'generals'. Particulars are a predominant focus of generalizations. Because KBpedia is an interacting amalgam of typologies, aside from the 200 or so concepts in KKO, 58,000 of the remaining concepts are all organized under the KKO 'generals' branch. However, specific individuals in the knowledge graph may reference the KKO concepts under the 'particulars' branch, and reasoning may occur across attributes and predicates using the 'monads' branch. These latter two options are nascent in KBpedia, but have not yet been tested and demonstrated. Now that our first task to create a Peircean knowledge representation with KBpedia is usable, I hope (and welcome others!) to begin applying such tests.
I do not associate 1ns with 'matter, life and ideas' as Ravi may be implying. Rather, the associates I see are matter (2ns), life (2ns) and ideas (3ns). Monads do not have a position or representation in space. They are unexpressed, unembodied attributes or relations. Absolute chance and possibilities are 'monads'.
While perhaps it has been useful for me to be the primary editor of KBpedia and interpreter of Peirce in relation to knowledge representation, I think more Peirce and knowledge representation afficiandos need to contribute. It would be fantastic to see knowledge graphs suitable for testing and refining computer programs in Peircean triadic logic and abductive logic, as examples.
At any rate, I hope this note or the paper reference [3] may help you understand my take on Peirce's universal categories.
Best, Mike
[1] http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/triadomany[2] Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1891. “The Architecture of Theories”. The Monist 1, no. 2: 161–76. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896847.pdf
[3] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com.
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman __________________________________________
Mike Bergman
Most excellent, thoughts and links both. Thanks!
Just a couple of references:
I realize most on this list will be aware of these works, including others such: Πυῤῥώνειοι ὑποτυπώσεις by S Empiricus
Etc.
On Mar 8, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Daniel L. Everett <danlev...@icloud.com> wrote:
On the role of triadic categories in Peirce’s philosophy and hierarchy, you might (if you haven’t already) want to check out some of the commentaries on Aristotle by the Conimbricenses, the Portuguese Jesuits of the 16th century (followed decades later by the important work of another Portuguese, Joao Poinsot). So far as I know it was here in their work (which Peirce knew well) that the first triadic basis of semiotics is explicitly mentioned (there is an excellent translation of some of this work by John Doyle, which I am sure most of this list will be familar with).
In the 20th century, Kenneth Pike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike) developed a pre-Chomskyan theory of linguistics, Tagmemics (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111657158/html), that also had a foundational triadic structure. In PIke’s work hierarchy was also crucial and he developed theories of various linguistic hierarchies (the basic three were referential, phonological, grammatical). Pike’s work predates Simon’s considerably.
In his own work, mathematician-theologian Vern Poythress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Poythress) argued that the basis of the triadic organization of Tagmemics and elsewhere was the trinity (https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Trinity-Perspectives-Knowledge-Imitate/dp/1629953199/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=trinity+by+vern+poythress&qid=1615232590&sr=8-3) Poythress is a serious mathematician as well as a theologian and a solid linguist.
I am inclined to believe that the doctrine of trinity was important in the thinking of the Portuguese Jesuits and also for Peirce (though I currently have no textual support to make a serious claim wrt the latter suggestion).
Simon did win the Nobel Prize in Economics, but when I knew him at CMU (in conjunction with my role on the computational linguistics faculty of the Pitt-CMU program going at that time), he defined his long-term research program as human problem-solving, leading to computer science, psychology, and other fields, beyond economics. His work on the hierarchy can also be related to (though it is rarely, if ever, credited) the conception of all linguistics structure as endocentric and recursive that Chomsky has urged (and which I have long argued against).
In any case, I highly recommend the Jesuit Aristotelian commentaries and the work of Poinsot (Deely has recently published a beautiful version of his Tractatus).
Dan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peir...@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to li...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Mike Bergman
Hi Bruce, Mauro,
As promised, I have split some of the earlier hierarchy paper
commentary with this one focusing on your ideas to date.
First, Mauro, Bruce was the author of the comment that prompted your response, so thanks, Bruce, for responding. And, Bruce, thanks for spending considerable time putting forth your ideas around a mandela-strip twisted into a closed loop. I am interested in learning more and I will try to keep some of these concepts in mind. I see the regularity and continuity in your thinking. However, I think there are some Peircean viewpoints (and my own!) where, if I understand your ideas correctly, I may see or interpret things a bit differently.
First, I very much like the dynamism of Peirce's semeiosis. Basically, he postulates a continuous process of sign-making and -representing: signs building upon signs and leading to more signs and more representation. In this dynamic process, subsequent iterations approach a bit more closely the 'truth' of the dynamic object of the sign, with the modes and acceptances of the evolving representations ultimately a social process of sign and terminology consensus. In this manner, then, rather than seeing the integral, closed mandela circle, I see something as evolving dynamically over time. I also believe knowledge needs to be treated in an open-world manner. In line with Peirce's strong beliefs in phenomenology, I would envision something more akin to this representation of an electromagnetic wave:
It kind of approaches the look of the mandela if one looks down
the trajectory (propagation) of the wave, like looking down the
barrel of a gun. 😉 This is probably way off from what you where
thinking, but does capture my sense for the need of dynamism.
Second, Peirce's acceptance and then advocacy for 'absolute chance' prevents absolute regularity or complete reductionism. Variablity is the bogey in this scenario, and is the driver for evolution, one source of the dynamism noted above. At the miniscule scale, we encounter quanta, but not apparently at larger scales of space or time. It is not clear to me how chance fits in to your 'strip' concept.
Third, from a visualization standpoint, I have seen these figures of spinning triangles around a centroid (the classic three-body problem), as the triangle sides are varied in length. It is mesmerizing, and there are patterns (such as reflected in fractals or cellular automata) where one can see self-organization emerge or perhaps new structures that represent new hierarchical levels. I know it is pretty abstract, but this figure is something I refer to on occasion when I want a more dynamic feel of how a Peircean basis to 'seeing' the world may work out:
As I suggest in the hierarchy paper,
new levels in natural hierarchies may arise because new
organizations of growing numbers of current structures may better
dissipate available free energy than continuing to do "more of the
same". Chance in 1ns is what supplies this variation.
Mauro's thoughts on 'line and continuum' I think might also be productively related to Peirce's writing on infinitesimals. Peirce thought deeply about Zeno and the basis for lines and continuity. I've dabbled a bit, but am by no means a mathematician. An OK starting place is Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peirce+infinitesimals
and then look for the listings with PDFs that you may read.
Hope this is helpful, Bruce. I'm glad you have found some stimulation to share your work.
Best, Mike
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00d501d713bf%240d0a7770%24271f6650%24%40cox.net.
Jon Awbrey
All your posts from that previous address would end up in my spam trap
(as often happens, no idea why} and I'd have to go there to rescue them
but this address appears to be working okay.
Regards,
Jon
On 3/9/2021 7:09 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote:> There seems to be some doubt as to whether this message of mine actually
made it through. If it did, apologies for resending it here from a new email address.
>
> Dan Everett
> On Mar 8, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Daniel L. Everett <danlev...@icloud.com<mailto:danlev...@icloud.com>> wrote:
>
> On the role of triadic categories in Peirce’s philosophy and hierarchy, you might (if you haven’t already) want to
check out some of the commentaries on Aristotle by the Conimbricenses, the Portuguese Jesuits of the 16th century
(followed decades later by the important work of another Portuguese, Joao Poinsot). So far as I know it was here in
Mike Bergman
Hi Dan,
Yes, mine made it through. Did I not respond to you?
Thanks, Mike
There seems to be some doubt as to whether this message of mine actually made it through. If it did, apologies for resending it here from a new email address.
Dan Everett
On Mar 8, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Daniel L. Everett <danlev...@icloud.com> wrote:
On the role of triadic categories in Peirce’s philosophy and hierarchy, you might (if you haven’t already) want to check out some of the commentaries on Aristotle by the Conimbricenses, the Portuguese Jesuits of the 16th century (followed decades later by the important work of another Portuguese, Joao Poinsot). So far as I know it was here in their work (which Peirce knew well) that the first well developed triadic basis of semiotics is explicitly mentioned (there is an excellent translation of some of this work by John Doyle, which I am sure most of this list will be familar with).
In the 20th century, Kenneth Pike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike) developed a pre-Chomskyan theory of linguistics, Tagmemics (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111657158/html), that also had a foundational triadic structure. In PIke’s work hierarchy was also crucial and he developed theories of various linguistic hierarchies (the basic three were referential, phonological, grammatical). Pike’s work predates Simon’s considerably.
In his own work, mathematician-theologian Vern Poythress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Poythress) argued that the basis of the triadic organization of Tagmemics and elsewhere was the trinity (https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Trinity-Perspectives-Knowledge-Imitate/dp/1629953199/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=trinity+by+vern+poythress&qid=1615232590&sr=8-3) Poythress is a serious mathematician as well as a theologian and a solid linguist.
I am inclined to believe that the doctrine of trinity was important in the thinking of the Portuguese Jesuits and also for Peirce (though I currently have no textual support to make a serious claim wrt the latter suggestion).
Simon did win the Nobel Prize in Economics, but when I knew him at CMU (in conjunction with my role on the computational linguistics faculty of the Pitt-CMU program going at that time), he defined his long-term research program as human problem-solving, leading to computer science, psychology, and other fields, beyond economics. His work on the hierarchy can also be related to (though it is rarely, if ever, credited) the conception of all linguistics structure as endocentric and recursive that Chomsky has urged (and which I have long argued against).
In any case, I highly recommend the Jesuit Aristotelian commentaries and the work of Poinsot (Deely has recently published a beautiful version of his Tractatus).
Dan
On Mar 8, 2021, at 1:39 PM, Mike Bergman <mi...@mkbergman.com> wrote:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peir...@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to li...@list.iupui.edu with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
--
Mike Bergman
Hi Dan,
OK, then. I thanked you for the points made and the many links. So, my apologies for it not getting through. Let me thank you again. 😁
Best, Mike
I saw no response.
On Mar 9, 2021, at 10:08, Mike Bergman <mi...@mkbergman.com> wrote:
Ravi Sharma
Mike Bergman
Hi Ravi,
Yes, I now see the (my) source for your confusion. That quote is poorly worded. Sorry to lead you astray, but I'm glad we had a chance to get further into the topic. BTW, the quote has perhaps another misleading assertion by conjoining 'possibilities' and 'potentials'. Peirce and most students clearly associate 'possibilities' with 1ns, but I sometimes see 'potential' related to 3ns.
Also, you can more clearly read the KKO hierarchies in bubble form or
as a straight
text listing directly from the KBpedia Web site.
Best, Mike
Ravi Sharma
Mike Bergman
Hi Ravi,
I'm pleased to hear of your growing interest in Peirce, whose
unusual last name spelling is pronounced "purse" (it still trips
me up). Further, I'm very interested in learning from your and
Bruce's discussions on Vedic philosophy, with my knowledge limited
to one course on world religions when a freshman in college
(Bruce, at UCSB, by the way.) God knows we need better
philosophies.
There is a wealth of information on Peirce's triadic tendencies
and insights. He maintained that the triad of the universal
categories was both necessary and sufficient to represent
everything. There are no 'indecomposable' relations beyond an N of
3, and 1ns, dyadic interaction, and triadic mediation are required
to enable a complete representation. Peirce maintained that he
could logically prove that three and no more than three relations
were necessary and sufficient, but no formal proof has yet been
found in his manuscripts. Though he did not call it such, Peirce's
assertion came to be called the 'reduction thesis', written much
about by Robert Burch [1], and now claimed to have been proven by
him [1] and others [2,3]. "The core of the Peircean Reduction
Thesis is that with the teridentity any relation can be
constructed from the unary and binary (or the ternary) relations,
but from unary and binary relations alone one cannot construct the
teridentity." [2, p 107].
I can not personally vouch that the reduction thesis has been
proven, and some of the earlier approaches (Burch's Peircean
Algebraic Logic PAL) have been claimed as incomplete. I have
looked but not been able to find much from relevant experts
validating these claims. If the reduction thesis is true (or close
enough to an actionable limit function), which I believe based on
what I have seen as being more likely than not, I could foresee
huge implications on worldview and research methodologies. I don't
know why this question has not gotten more focus from relevant
experts or mathematicians. For a rather complete Peircean
statement about the universal categories and its relation to
logical thinking, with an emphasis on Thirdness, a good starting
point is his 1903 Harvard lecture on "The Categories Defended" (EP
2:169-174).
n-ary constructs beyond an N of 3 are thus composites of the basic three. Peirce produced a number of hierarchies in his researches, specifically in the sciences, logic, and signs (representations). He tended to limit the number of components at a given level to three, and sometimes explicitly defined or likened these groups of three to the universal categories. He was not dogmatic in these regards, especially at the lower more specific levels of the tree, but the strong tendency is pretty evident, nicely shown by his 'perennial' 1903 Classification of the Sciences (also, importantly, note the scope he and his time ascribed to 'science'). In terms of signs (semiosis), Peirce worked through more hierarchical expressions that focused on from 3 to 6 and then 10, 28 and 66 nodes in the cascades or pyramids. (Because of logical relationships, not all combinatorial possibilities apply.) You can see some of these with Google Images [4]. There are many list members with much expertise in these areas that I hope may offer their insights and correct or amplify my assertions.
Across various levels in these hierarchies, including my own with
KBpedia, I find the triadic structure to feel "stronger" at the
more abstract, higher levels. The colors blur and wash out as one
gets more specific and particular. Nonetheless, when I look at
these triads across levels and contexts I feel like I gain a kind
of compass or well-witch (dowsing rods) to help me cluster and
organize the domain presently under inspection. In these ways, the
three categories become like a lens or filter for helping to
discern the relations among the relevant things in that domain.
For me, it is more of a goad to think critically in certain ways
(chance - actuality - potential) than an answer. Still, an
inspection, which requires focus and attention, if successful, I
find brings a sense of 'rightness' and calm sufficient to move on
to the next challenge when following this method. I have been
applying this approach for a few years now.
Peirce noted in his later years that he had lost the rigor for focused mathematics, but one of his later efforts involved a three-valued logic. Here, too, Peirce was not able to do much more than tantalize. My sense is that his motivation was a growing disaffection for excluded middle (or, at least, too broad an application of it), but I have yet to do much research in this area. Others on this list likely have, and may have some commentary, particularly if anyone sees any implications or parallels with the universal categories.
Your bottom-line question about '4ns' and the question about what
a Peircean perspective might bring is absolutely germane. I think
there is tremendous upside to the triadic perspective, but right
now, for me, its real benefit is to help question and wean Western
culture from an attitude of dichotomy and either-or and the
separation of mind that Descartes crapped onto thinking humanity.
My personal belief is that what Peirce offers for our immediate
dilemmas is a more embracing, contextual construct. It is not
either-or or binary, but multipodal across all continual
dimensions. I don't mean to sound like bullshit. I think this is
real.
Unfortunately, many Peircean sources are not easily found in open
source, and I can not post widely the copies I have. If something
interests you, let me know, and I'll forward what I can.
Thanks, Mike
[1] Burch, Robert. 1991. A Peircean Reduction Thesis: The Foundations of Topological Logic. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.[2] Dau, Frithjof, and Joachim Hereth Correia. 2006. “Two Instances of Peirce’s Reduction Thesis.” In ICFCA, Springer, 105–18.
[3] Hereth, Joachim, and Reinhard Pöschel. 2011. “Peircean Algebraic Logic and Peirce’s Reduction Thesis.” Semiotica 2011(186): 141–67.
[4] https://www.google.com/search?q=peirce+66+signs, then pick the 'Images' menu option
Ravi Sharma
bruces...@cox.net
I have a little app on my phone, where every day I get an “inspiring quote”
Yesterday, the quote was from Einstein
https://luminaryquotes.app/dailyquote/2021-03-11
PART OF THE WHOLE
“A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
*************
I’d say this idea can be understood as a restatement of the Brahman/Atman idea I posted in a diagram. At some level, there is supposedly a universal and replicable template that takes particular form in endless different ways.
As individuals we connect to it. As individuals we connect to each other through it.
Can this idea guide ontology?
I’d say this is a diagram of “hierarchical recursive theology” – an illustration of how Einstein’s idea might work and showing the interconnection of souls and how human might “free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” I think a strong case can be made that all of conceptual structure emerges from a model of “Logos” that takes this general form. This claim is consistent with much of classical theology and philosophy.
**************
PART OF THE WHOLE
“A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Humanism, Arts and Sciences
Easwaran, Eknath. Words to Live by: Short Readings of Daily Wisdom. Nilgiri Press, 2010, p. 336.
Albert Einstein
Naomy Levy, Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein used a different formulation of the above featured passage in a letter to Rabbi Robert S. Marcus:
“A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”
–Albert Einstein [Naomi Levy, Einstein and the Rabbi: Searching for the Soul, MacMillan] pp. 22-23.
Eknath Easwaran, Albert Einstein
None of us see life as it is, the world as it is. We all see life as we are. We look at others through our own likes and dislikes, desires and interests. It is this separatist outlook that fragments life for us – man against woman, community against community, country against country. Yet the mystics of all religions assure us on the strength of their own experience, if only we throw away this fragmenting instrument of observation, we shall see all life as an indivisible whole.
–Eknath Easwaran [Words to Live By, Nilgiri Press, 2005] p. 336.
RESOURCES
Ravi Sharma
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/008c01d71750%249c09cef0%24d41d6cd0%24%40cox.net.