Dear Sung,

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:

Physical World

Mental World

Structural World

*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.


Mark Burgin

On 2/25/2018 3:04 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:

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 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 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

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to