Mike, List: MB: I'm in agreement with most of your points, but differ in two.
I am not sure that we really disagree even on those two. MB: First, I chose monads, particulars and generals for KKO in context to knowledge representation and the correspondence with instances/classes in current KR languages. This seems like mostly a difference in emphasis. As I have admitted to you before, I do not know much about the discipline of knowledge representation, so I will take your word for it that the terminology of monads/particulars/generals is more appropriate for your purposes within that context than quality/reaction/mediation. MB: We know about the general modern discussion of information and energy, and quite a few researchers have related this to Peirce, entropy, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Hermann-Pillith, Annila, Salthe, me). I am not familiar with any of that literature either, so I will refrain from further comment until you are able "to put forward a coherent narrative." Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:48 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jon, List: > > I'm in agreement with most of your points, but differ in two. First, I > chose monads, particulars and generals for KKO in context to knowledge > representation and the correspondence with instances/classes in current KR > languages. I'm not sure I have a firm sense that Peirce himself had a firm > sense of which characterization he preferred. Your preferred canonical > version is 'quality, reaction, and mediation', not a bad choice that I > agree he propones, but he strongly proposed a few variants and again that > raises the contextual issue. I simply can not see how one can fully > understand the universal categories without understanding their > commonalities and essences across instances of use. This is basic hierarchy > and categorization 101. > > Second, Peirce is explicit about the depth and breadth of information > (1867, CP 2.407-8) or what he also called the area (CP 2.419), a view he > maintained for more than 35 years (1903, EP 2:305), as you picked up in his > later defense. This was a major contributor to the discussion of intension > and extension in my hierarchy paper. We know about the general modern > discussion of information and energy, and quite a few researchers have > related this to Peirce, entropy, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics > (Hermann-Pillith, Annila, Salthe, me). The relation to energy therefore > deserves close inspection, and our basic E = mcc does employ an area, only > now one of light. Since speed of light (c) is also a time concept, this is > perhaps evidence that time prescinds space. There is a major theme > underlying this that I will discuss with the list when I am ready to put > forward a coherent narrative. > > Thanks, Mike > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > Cognonto Corporation > 319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
