Inclined to agree with Joseph. I would like to point out that there are different meanings for "real', and one has to be clear about ones metaphysics to make the idea (somewhat) clear. Peirce, for example, would call Plato's shadows (which aren't really shadows at all, real, but not existent. The sort of shadows that we normal experience are both real and existent on Peirce's account.


On 2018/02/26 4:58 AM, wrote:

    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, includesa 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

    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:
        /CAT_A => F => CAT_B => G => CAT_C /
        /CAT_A => H => CAT_C /
        /_F ○ G = H /
        /F/, /G/, and /H/ are /*functors*/;
        /CAT_II Î CAT/ is the category of /*information interaction
        /CAT_A Î CAT_II / and /CAT_C Î CAT_II /  are the categories
        of */mental models’ categories/*;
        /CAT_B Î CAT_II / 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 posts.
        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
        Collier web page

Fis mailing list

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier web page <>
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to