On 17 Jan 2013, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:

Hi John,

My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective.


I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. Note that such 1p/3p distinction is made precise informally by the inside/outside the teleportation/duplication boxes in UDA, the terms/ wave in Everett (implicitly), and formally by the Bp and Bp & p in AUDA. But this makes just more precise, for the reasoning, the usual subjective/objective distinction, or even the first and third person usual grammatical distinction. One apparent exception is that the physical reality is no more that much objective, as it is (with comp) a first person plural construct. Physical "objectivity" appears to be a first person plural construction (by *all* Löbian machines, not just the humans). Of course this is due to the "reversal": objective is just taken in the usual 3p sense, but physics is no more 3p.

The use of the traditional sense for 1p/3p is even more well suited for the Neoplatonist (Plotinian) "trinity", as we get more or less precisely the same type of "trinity" with the intensional variant of self-reference (p, Bp, and Bp & p, playing respectively the role of the "outer God", the "Noùs, and the inner God-universal-soul).

This might or not be compared with Pierce, I don't know.

Best,

Bruno





Cheers

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
Russell,
I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who -
maybe? - got it what 2p was.
My vocabulary allows me to consider what "I consider" (=1p) and I may
communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p
communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset.
No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance?
John Mikes

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au >wrote:

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish

2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic
logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.

The following equivalences should hold between comp
and Peirce's logical categories:

3p = Thirdness or III
2p = Secondness or II
1p = Firstness or I.

Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic,
while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic
logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part.
So .

Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes:

http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html


"Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
positively and without reference to anything else.

Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
with respect to a second but regardless of any third.

Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
in bringing a second and third into relation to each other."
(A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)"


Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I
cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that
relate to subjectivity and objectivity.

As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be.


--


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to