Thank you for sharing with us your interesting ideas based on the
Peircean triadic approach. It is not by chance that your triad exactly
corresponds to the Existential Triad, which stratifies the whole World
into three interrelated components:
*Form (A) corresponds to the **Structural**World*
*Shadow (B) ***corresponds to *****the **Physical World***
*Thought (C)* *corresponds to the **Mental World*
So, shadows are indeed real as they belong to the physical world, in
which we live.
On 2/25/2018 3:04 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> 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:
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
/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 categories*/;
/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
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in
Thank you for your nice words.
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical
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.
Fis mailing list
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier web page
Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list