Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

2018-02-25 Thread John Collier
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.


John

On 2018/02/26 4:58 AM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch 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
science.

Thank you,

Joseph



Message d'origine
De : s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À : ag...@ncf.ca, fis@listas.unizar.es
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.


Sung



*From:* Fis  on behalf of John
Collier 
*Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*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 

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

2018-02-25 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
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,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À : ag...@ncf.ca, fis@listas.unizar.es
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.
Sung

From: Fis  on behalf of John Collier 

Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
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,
John
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
 
CATA => H => CATC
 
F ○ G = H
where
F, G, and H are functors;
CATII 
Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;
CATA Î CATII and
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 
posts.
;
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words. 
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical languages.

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

2018-02-25 Thread John Collier

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,

John

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 /
where
/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.

Smile
;
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
Krassimir


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


--
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier web page 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] The shadows are real !!!

2018-02-25 Thread Krassimir Markov
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

CATA => H => CATC

F ○ G = H

where

F, G, and H are functors;

CATII Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;

CATA Î CATII and 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 
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
Krassimir








wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Description: Binary data
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis