Mike, list
I absolutely agree with you that the " the root fount of Peirce's
approach is in his triadism, what he himself jocularly called
his 'triadomany' "
And, as you continue to write, that "His universal categories are
the root of the root"
And I agree with you when you write:" I do not associate 1ns with
'matter, life and ideas' as Ravi may be implying"
Matter is in 2ns, since it is, as a morphological unit, in a mode of
particularity. And, the physico-chemical realm is certainly
functioning in 2ns [as well as 1ns and 3ns] - ie, 2ns is not
confined to 'life', understanding life as the biological.
As for 'ideas' - I think one has to be cautious about defining 1ns
as 'ideas' - for this moves into Hegelian/Platonic zones. As you do-
I'd also prefer to think of ideas as 3ns.
I'd prefer unorganized potentiality for 1ns.
As for 'life' - I'd say that it can't be understood as 'only' 2ns;
it is a triadic complexity of all three categories, where the
adapted, evolved Rules [3ns] organize 'available free energy' [1ns]
into 'particulars' [2ns].
As for abductive logic, I see it as operating within the categorical
mode of 3-2...; a Rule emerging by Mind recognizing specific
attributes of particular entities in the local environment.
Edwina
On Mon 08/03/21 1:39 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
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 [1] (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
On 3/7/2021 1:34 PM, Ravi Sharma wrote:
Mike and Bruce
While coming from eastern (indian) philosophy and
metaphysics based preliminary background, I would like to
understand one of the three items above: (I have to fully
read Mike's ISKO paper which is modern, and also understand
in this context Aristotle, Pierce and Sowa, category
theory!)
*Monads
*Particulars
*Generals
and for example I. 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
Regarding - 1ns - matter, life and
ideas. These appear to me to be complex multi level
hierarchies. While matter without life can not have
ideas, life and ideas are somewhat acceptable as
cognitive life (most of it is at the life's level to
carry-on life's cycle.), but there are precursors to
matter and life, namely some seed of becoming (desire) or
consciousness before matter and life originate!
II. Also what is the role of
Monad, is it like origin in a multidimensional space, is
it affine, Euclidean, Hilbert space, or a space later
defined in terms of sets and groups?
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
MagicJack US
3133935264
India mobile 011 91
96366 58888
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 6:38 AM Mauro
Bertani wrote:
Hi Mike, about
what you wrote
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at
00:30, 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
there is the concept
of line and continuum. Let's assume we have a
hierarchical tree with simple concepts and a
hierarchical tree with propositions. We combine these
two trees according to the phrases Subject - Predicate
- Object. We get a number. This number can be related in new
subject-predicted-object phrases.. We thus obtain
increasingly complex concepts, represented by
increasingly large numbers, which are arranged on
the line according to their complexity. similar a
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set [4] aand
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph . I hope
this can help you. Mauro
From: [email protected] [5]
On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM
To: [email protected] [7];
[email protected] [8];
[email protected] [9]
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, [email protected] [10]
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
[11]
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
[12] 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 [13] knowledge structure,
and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology
[14] (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
[email protected] [15] / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org [16] / www.integralontology.net [17]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [18]
[19] On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM
To: [email protected] [20];
[email protected] [21]
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 [22]. 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/ [23]
---
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
[email protected] [24].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]
[25]. --
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/ [26]
---
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
[email protected] [27].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]
[28].
--
"[..] events are primarily linguistic or
cognitive in nature. That is, the world does not really
contain events. Rather, events are the way by which agents
classify certain useful and relevant patterns of change."
Allen and Fergusson
"No, no. History
of Eternity. At first I wanted to find
every single one of the buyers to apologize because
of the book and also to thank them for what they had
done. There is an explanation for that. If you think
of thirty-seven people—those people are real, I
mean every one of them has a face of his own, a
family, he lives on his own particular street. Why,
if you sell, say two thousand copies, it is the same
thing as if you had sold nothing at all because two
thousand is too vast—I mean, for the imagination
to grasp. While thirty-seven people—perhaps
thirty-seven are too many, perhaps seventeen would
have been better or even seven—but still
thirty-seven are still within the scope of one's
imagination."
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
[29] --
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/ [30]
---
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
[email protected] [31].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.gmail.com
[32].
--
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/
[33]
---
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 [email protected]
[34].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caan3-5em2xpnww_q45_ns2awsoumlgbdsa%[email protected]
[35].
-- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
Links:
------
[1] https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11] http://originresearch.com
[12] http://originresearch.com/sd/sd4.cfm
[13] https://kbpedia.org/
[14] https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
[15]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[16] http://www.origin.org
[17] http://www.integralontology.net
[18]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[19]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[20]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[21]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[22] https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy
[23] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[24]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[25]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[26] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[27]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[28]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[29]
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
[30] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[31]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[32]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
[33] http://ontologforum.org/info/
[34]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[35]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caan3-5em2xpnww_q45_ns2awsoumlgbdsa%[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
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.
