Dear FISers,
With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is becoming a matter 
of scientific interest that statements by them and others to the effect that 
"systematic research of what the 'shadows' are a part" has not been done are 
made routinely. First of all, the logic in reality  of Lupasco about which I 
have been talking here for 10 years, includes a new mereology in which the 
dynamic relations between part and whole are set out for discussion. Second, 
while the 'diagram' of Merleau-Ponty may be considered interesting as 
philosophy and as a foundation of religious belief, I see no reason to include 
it, without heavy qualification, in a discussion of the foundations of 
information science.
Thank you,
----Message d'origine----
De :
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À :,
Objet : Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Hi Krassimir,
I agree with you that  "The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What 
is needed
 is a systematic research from what they are part."
In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part of the 
irreudicible triad consisting of
Form (A), Shadow (B) and Thought (C).  The essential notion of the ITR 
(Irreducible Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, and C cannot be reduced to any 
one or a pair of the triad.  This automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part 
of the whole triad
 (which is, to me, another name for the Ultimate Reality), as Form and Thought 
are.  In other words, the Ultimate Reality is not Form nor Shadow nor Thought 
individually but all of them together, since they constitute an irreducible 
triad.    This idea is expressed
 in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate Reality is the complementary union of the
Visble and the Invisible World (see Table 1 attached).  Apparently a similar 
idea underlies the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), according 
to my son, Douglas Sayer Ji (see his semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to
 the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance of B. 
Wilshire, attached). 
All the best.
From: Fis <> on behalf of John Collier 
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Daer Krassimir, List
I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you 
presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of the best. 
However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or logical proof by 
itself, in its formalism, does
 not show anything at all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to 
experience in a comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my 
dissertation, and I take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others 
that are pretty strong as well.
I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical connections. 
If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without this, the formalism 
is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to give formal names to things 
and assume that this
 identifies things, Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a 
profound waste of time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a 
nonformal way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as 
automatically defective, since they think
 that formal representation is all that really rigorously explains things. This 
sort of thinking (in Logical Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction 
as people started to ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to 
observations. It is
 a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere -- my PhD thesis 
was about this problem. It hurts me to see people making the same mistake, 
especially when it leads them to bizarre conclusions that are compatible with 
the formalism (actually,
 it is provable that almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, 
up to numerosity).
I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness,
On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed is a 
systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you like:
CATA => F => CATB => G => CATC
F ○ G = H
F, G, and H are functors;
Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;
CATC Î CATII  are the categories of
mental models’ categories;
CATB Î CATII  is the category of
models’ categories.
Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in further posts.
Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in further 
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words. 
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical languages.
Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in the mathematical 
reasoning, in one hand, and, as the Bourbaki experiment had shown, not 
everything is ready to be formalized.
How much of FIS members understood what I had written above?
The way starts from philosophical reasoning  and only some times ends in 
mathematical formal explanations.
Friendly greetings
Fis mailing list
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
 web page 
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to