[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 20

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Joe, Peirce List,

Inasmuch as the anticipation on this score seems to be mounting,
here is the list of possibly relevant meanings of "involvement"
that I had drawn up when I started down this particular path:

| Meanings Of Involvement:
|
| Approximation
| Constituent (Syntactic)
| Component (Relational)
| Explanation
| Implication
| Projection

Some of these are closely related, for instance,
approximation and projection, at least as taken
in their mathematical senses, but other senses
are independent if not opposed to each other.

For example, putting aside the trickier subtleties of whether Peter Pan's
shadow (pre-Wendy) can remain detached from him at high noon, one can say
that standing in the sun involves having a shadow.  But few would contend
that having a shadow explains standing in the sun.

For another, an elliptic orbit involves a virtual infinitude of epicycles,
in the sense that the former can be approximated by the latter, but that
amounts to no more than a tautological or a trivial form of involvement,
falling far short of a dynamic, material, and physical explanation.

With that look ahead, I'll return to plodding my usual trajectory.

Jon Awbrey

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