Dear Joseph, Merleau-Ponty is undoubtedly a philosopher, but I would surmise that when "foundations", as you say, are a matter of discussion, it is difficult to keep philosophy out of the door. More to the point, would you absolutely exclude the relevance of self- organisation for the construction of information science ? If not, allow me to mention how significant was the influence of Merleau-Ponty's philosophy in Francisco Varela's work—see Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. *The embodied mind: **Cognitive science and human experience*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Best regards, -dino On 26 February 2018 at 03:58, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <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, 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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John Collier < > ag...@ncf.ca> > *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. > > [image: 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 > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C4be3d21049464c94484008d57c89414b%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636551851333258845&sdata=pyetxMAjDL1rj4zKUE02Jzh3IBPImoz5XhXw6n7BNwA%3D&reserved=0> > > > -- > John Collier > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban > Collier web page > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ncf.ca%2Fcollier&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C4be3d21049464c94484008d57c89414b%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636551851333258845&sdata=rIcx4KChby6VazUEEwX4fp1Umhr4qIMxgQg6adIA5lo%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
