[Inquiry] Re: Blocks On The Road Of Inquiry -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

BOTROI.  Discussion Note 12

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

[Echo to the Inquiry List in attempt to recover the thread after Easter]

bernard,

just time for brief remarks -- sans notes -- and easter wishes.

the connection between orders of intention and reflection/reflexion
is established in several passages from peirce, i think that there's
one where he cites thomas aquinas?  so i made up the composite term
"reflective intentional order" -- the acronym RIO makes me think of
3 parallel streams of consciousness).  peirce appears to distinguish
this from both arities and modalities.  the notes that i sent about
"negate, augment, denominate" are relevant to this, but it will take
me time to explain.  i think i can see that modalities are a special
case under arities, as reflected in alpha, beta, gamma graphs, and
this is related to the synthesis of (a) intension and (b) extension
under (c) information, but this is all very tentative.  at present,
the only place where we see anything like proof of three categories
being necessary and sufficient is with regard to relation arities.
otherwise, it's back to "pick your favorite number" games, and we
certainly see a lot of that.

well, gotta run --

i categorically wish all of you and yours joy, love, and peace.

jon

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Bernard Morand wrote:
> 
> Slow response because the thesis needs time to be examined:
> 
> At 19:10 06/04/04 -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> >BOTROI.  Discussion Note 11
> >
> >o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> >BM = Bernard Morand
> >JA = Jon Awbrey
> >
> >
> >JA: * The Editors insert this note about the "Modes of Being":
> >
> >     "Usually called categories by Peirce.  See vol. 1, bk. III."
> >
> >JA: Do they really mean to say that the Categories
> >     are Actuality, Possibility, Destiny?  I cannot
> >     see the sense of that.
> >
> >BM: If you think of them as the elements that always belong
> >     to every phenomena, they are just the phenomenological
> >     duplicates, respectively of Secondness, Firstness,
> >     Thirdness.
> 
> JA:
> 
> >Now wait a minute.
> >
> >At this point we have 3 different 3-folds.
> >
> >1.  Categories = Predicaments.
> >
> >2.  Reflective Intentional Orders
> >
> >3.  Modalities:  May Being, Is Being, Would Being.
> 
> Yes, but is it necessary that they come into one unique sign ? The second
> folder appears to me as an odd one into the list.
> 
> JA:
> >The first I can understand as the Aretes of Relations:
> >1-adic, 2-adic, 3-adic.  It is only here that we can
> >prove the necessity and sufficiency of the 3-some.
> >
> >The "reflective intentional orders" (RIO's), that we get from
> >iterating the particular type of hypostatic abstraction that
> >comes from successive orders of reflection on semiosis --
> >this is another problem that I have spent some time on.
> 
> I think that hypostatic abstraction is not an order of reflexion ON
> semiosis but a special kind (of reflexion) IN semiosis. It's your previous
> "Wait a minute": an image's stop within the moving picture of thoughts. So,
> hypostatic abstraction (and CSP was nevertheless right in giving it so
> great merits) is far from being the whole of semiosis. It is just
> instantaneous semiosis.
> 
> JA:
> >There are here only some hints of mathematical reasons
> >why the series might end or cycle after three levels,
> >but this is not nearly so certain as the first case.
> 
> This is practically very important. I have several times observed that the
> third intension is an end, may be it would deserve to be called a dead end.
> Some decades ago people undertook to make reflexive object systems out of
> Lisp (ObjVLisp if I recall correctly), the third level was necessary and
> sufficient in order to build them. Every time I try to make a meta-model
> and then a meta-model of the former, the latter as nothing new to tell me.
> This would have to be considered by the XML fans and much more by the UML
> ones. UML as four meta-levels and one infra-level: it is a coarse language.
> Now I haven't any formal or mathematical account for such observations. It
> would be of great interest to get at it. If my previous insight into
> hypostasis / semiosis is right we would have a progress towards the
> question of semiotic closure. If what is closed is closed by means of
> image's stopping, then it would become doubtful that true (continuous)
> dynamic systems could be themselves closed. Yet we would have a legitimate
> device to make as if they were so.
> 
> Bernard
> 
> PS. Many thanks for your previous agreement on my idea on particulars and
> line segments. This gives the energy that I was needing to continue on the
> track
> 
> >At any rate, the series in this case is more like:
> >(a) predicates, (b) predicates of predicates, and
> >(c) predicates of predicates of predicates, which
> >is on the face of it a different sort of series.
> >
> >As for the relation of these RIO's to Modalities, Peirce rather explicitly
> >says:  "the divisions so obtained must not be confounded with the different
> >Modes of Being:  Actuality, Possibility, Destiny (or Freedom from Destiny)".
> >
> >Now, I'd be surprised if there weren't 'some' sort of relations among these
> >three series, for valid correspondences can be found even among things that
> >must not be confounded, but I think that we are a long way from proving any
> >brand of identity among them.
> >
> >Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o