Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Differential Logic
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes - I think Peirce and Spencer Brown work very well together.
Thanks for all your work.
Edwina
On Thu 09/04/20 10:54 AM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
Cf: Differential Logic • Discussion 1
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/09/differential-logic-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/
[1]
Re: Joseph Simpson
At:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/structural-modeling/xB5tRt4mcEM/IfaF8YlLBgAJ
[2]
Thanks, Joe, glad you liked the table, I've got a million of 'em!
I'll be setting another mess of tables directly as we
continue studying the effects of differential operators on families
of propositional forms.
For anyone wondering, "Where's the Peirce?" — he is the Atlas on
whose shoulders the whole world of differential logic
turns. The elegant efficiency of Peirce's logical graphs, augmented
by Spencer Brown and extended to cactus graphs,
made it feasible for the first time to take on the extra
complexities of differential propositional calculus. So that
theme is a constant throughout the development of differential
logic.
Hope you and yours are safe and sound,
Jon
On 4/8/2020 4:38 PM, joseph simpson wrote:
> Jon:
>
> I like the chart, things are starting to make a little more sense
to me.
>
> Further, I read your paper, "An Architecture for Inquiry :
> Building Computer Platforms for Discovery" from Research Gate.
[
https://www.academia.edu/1270327/An_Architecture_for_Inquiry_Building_Computer_Platforms_for_Discovery
[3] ]
>
> The examples in the paper help to add additional context.
>
> Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,
>
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:12 AM Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
>> Cf: Differential Logic • 8
>> At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/08/differential-logic-%e2%80%a2-8/
[5]
>>
Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F2020%2F04%2F09%2Fdifferential-logic-%25e2%2580%25a2-discussion-1%2F
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsg%2Fstructural-modeling%2FxB5tRt4mcEM%2FIfaF8YlLBgAJ
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F1270327%2FAn_Architecture_for_Inquiry_Building_Computer_Platforms_for_Discovery
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jawb...@att.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F2020%2F04%2F08%2Fdifferential-logic-%25e2%2580%25a2-8%2F
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Differential Logic
Cf: Differential Logic • Discussion 1 At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/09/differential-logic-%e2%80%a2-discussion-1/ Re: Joseph Simpson At: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/structural-modeling/xB5tRt4mcEM/IfaF8YlLBgAJ Thanks, Joe, glad you liked the table, I've got a million of 'em! I'll be setting another mess of tables directly as we continue studying the effects of differential operators on families of propositional forms. For anyone wondering, "Where's the Peirce?" — he is the Atlas on whose shoulders the whole world of differential logic turns. The elegant efficiency of Peirce's logical graphs, augmented by Spencer Brown and extended to cactus graphs, made it feasible for the first time to take on the extra complexities of differential propositional calculus. So that theme is a constant throughout the development of differential logic. Hope you and yours are safe and sound, Jon On 4/8/2020 4:38 PM, joseph simpson wrote: > Jon: > > I like the chart, things are starting to make a little more sense to me. > > Further, I read your paper, "An Architecture for Inquiry : > Building Computer Platforms for Discovery" from Research Gate. [ https://www.academia.edu/1270327/An_Architecture_for_Inquiry_Building_Computer_Platforms_for_Discovery ] > > The examples in the paper help to add additional context. > > Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, > > Joe > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:12 AM Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Cf: Differential Logic • 8 >> At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/04/08/differential-logic-%e2%80%a2-8/ >> - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, function alone. 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. Edwina On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B (firstness), that on a specific occasion interact AB (secondness), with a response C as a consequence (a first until it interacts itself). The description of the process that leads to the response intends to express the law(s) (thirdness) that governs the process. The distinctions made with regard to signs (small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description. Best, Auke Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky : Auke - thanks for your post. In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in both its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering the nature of the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a government].I am not considering the triadic relations which make up a Sign. I am considering only of the category of Thirdness - which is the 'medium or connecting bond'. 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up commonalities. Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within Secondness - sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential 'physical connection' , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin fastens two things together by sticking through one and also through the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' in a society is that 'networked interactive community. This is not necessarily intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity within a common location binds the individual units into some kind of cohesion. Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance between forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds of comparison. My view of this in a society, understood as a collection of individuals [not a random set] is that there is a certain degree of similarity of type that established that commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects cannot be 'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its commonality. As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked interactive community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on the existence [2ns] of 'things'...which is why I see the networked interactive community as 'things [people] held together by some common idea [3ns]. But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that which is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future' [1.343] Edwina On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and índividuals interacting' seem to me not
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B (firstness), that on a specific occasion interact AB (secondness), with a response C as a consequence (a first until it interacts itself). The description of the process that leads to the response intends to express the law(s) (thirdness) that governs the process. The distinctions made with regard to signs (small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description. Best, Auke Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > Auke - thanks for your post. > > In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in both > its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering the nature of > the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a government].I am not > considering the triadic relations which make up a Sign. I am considering > only of the category of Thirdness - which is the 'medium or connecting bond'. > 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up commonalities. > > Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within Secondness - > sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential 'physical connection' > , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin fastens two things together by > sticking through one and also through the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' > in a society is that 'networked interactive community. This is not > necessarily intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity > within a common location binds the individual units into some kind of > cohesion. > > Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance between > forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds of comparison. > My view of this in a society, understood as a collection of individuals [not > a random set] is that there is a certain degree of similarity of type that > established that commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects > cannot be 'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its > commonality. > > As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked interactive > community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on the existence [2ns] > of 'things'...which is why I see the networked interactive community as > 'things [people] held together by some common idea [3ns]. > > But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that which > is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future' > [1.343] > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent: > > > > > > Edwina, > > > > In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and > > índividuals interacting' seem to me not to be on the same plane. I am > > inclined to see the first as a 3.3 and the second as a 3.2. > > > > And, your 3.1 'mimetic population' is if taken as a sign aspect > > iconicity, which is in basic semiotics of categorical value 2.1 so if > > lifted to belong at bottom to thirdness a 3.2.1. if government only offers > > suggestive (rheme 3.1) examples, individuals in the populace are left to > > decide on their own. > > > > Since member of society and governemt are to be regarded as signs, > > we are able to at least look at the matter from three perspectives for > > each. Sign in itself, sign in relation to iets object and sign as it > > adrfresses its interpreting sign. > > > > Auke > > > > > > Op 7 april 2020 om 16:58 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > Governance, if we want to use a Peircean category to analyze > > > it, would always have to be within the mode of Thirdness. > > > > > > Now- whether the governing mode is 3-1 [Thirdness operating > > > in a mode of Firstness, which sets up a mimetic population] ; or 3-2, > > > [Thirdness operating in a mode of Secondness] which sets up a networked > > > interactive population [ie, individuals interacting]; or 3-3 [Thirdness > > > operating in a mode of Thirdness] - which is pure ideology detached from > > > a population - well, I think we could analyze such a framework. Not easy > > > of course. > > > > > > But the article did not deal with the categories in this way; > > > instead, it simply too each category 'in itself' and judged how it would > > > operate as the guiding principle of a society. I disagree with such a > > > tactic for the reasons I already gave. > > > > > > Edwina >
