SUO: Re: Detached Ideas On Virally Important Topics
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Matthew West wrote:
>
> Dear Jon,
>
> I have read what follows, and understood (I think) about 2/3.
>
> My problem is that you are taking a way of turning triadic relations
> into dyadic relations that I would not take, showing that it is not
> sensible (I agree) and then concluding that because this way doesn't
> work, you can't do it at all. Where as in reality you have only shown
> that this way doesn't work.
Across my several notes on this subject, I have illustrated in some detail
two of the most common ways that folks from maths to database applications
understand the problem of decomposing relations -- no, not you, Uncle Jack!
Yes, of course, one can think of many others. DeMorgan, Peirce & Company,
Schroeder, and hordes of crafty hobbyists and logicians came up with more
than I can easily remember -- it was almost a cottage industry in the mid
to late 19th Century. And one of the first chores that Peirce labored on
was to plot out a rational classification of most of the operations worth
bothering about. And most post*modern logicians will tell you, with nary
a blink or a tear of the eye, how God's Own Modern Quantificational Logic
absorbed each and every barrel'o'monkeys, kettle'o'fish, tin'o'worms, and
assimilated the entire Locke Stock Kif^N^Kaboodle Motley Crew of Algebras
into its "Grand Amalgamated Smelting Pot" (GASP) -- and to a lion's share
that is true.
But there is one thing that is true of every one of these actual or alleged,
genuine or ostensible, computative or reputative "forms of analysis" (FOA's),
and that is that each of them participates in -- "takes part in" -- a form of
triadic relation, which is the "archetype" or the generic form of all analysis
itself, apart from all of its specific or specious details, and thus, as I have
emphasized, time and time again, and merely by way of but feebly attempting to
reinforce the sheer observation of this shear that Peirce already made, this
argument was done with from the very moment that it began, and we have only
been haggling about the price of our pro-analytic constitutional hierachy.
> I feel rather as I have done on some previous occassions
> that I have been gagged and am only allowed to utter the
> words that you put there because that is all I am allowed
> to have meant.
All that I have done is to follow up the logical consequences of what you say.
> Let me take something from below as an example.
Please understand, from my POV, you have not yet GIVEN me even
a single example of a 3-adic relation, except for these things
that you call "examples", which are only what I consider to be
"elementary relations", that is, single elements of speculated
relations, or lone k-tuples of length k = 3. There is just no
significant extent of relation to be found in such a construct,
except insofar as I or you or somebody or other imagines it to
be so, and my experience GIVES me to know that the imagination
of humans and others is a vast and diverse realm of imaginings.
> If we have "John gave the flue to Mary" you argue that
> this is an irreducibly triadic relation of the form:
>
> Gives <John, Flue, Mary>.
First of all, I would never even call what you just GAVE a "relation",
except perhaps to play along, which I begin to see has been a mistake,
and so I will now formally cease to do it. Since I have provided you
with concrete examples of 3-adic relations, and you have GIVEN me not
a one, I will defer further discussion until you think to reciprocate.
> I on the other hand put my analysts hat on and say:
>
> There is an object missing. There is an activity
> going on which I can recognise as another object,
> say g, which is a member of the Gives class (if
> I were being more precise I would describe this
> as a physical transfer, but gives will do here).
>
> There are 3 objects that are each involved in
> this activity with different roles to play:
>
> Giver <g, John>
> Given <g, Flue>
> Receiver <g, Mary>
What GIVES here?
What connects the three lines of syntax that you just GAVE?
And while I am at it, what interpretation do you GIVE them?
Do you mean to GIVE them to me as mere strings of letters?
Or do you mean to GIVE me some meaning by means of them?
I can only tell you that it is not GIVEN what you mean.
It is not GIVEN what binds those letters together.
It is not GIVEN what meaning they will have to me.
It is not GIVEN what bearing they deliver to life.
If one desires to GIVE anybody any of these things,
then GIFT, GIVEE, GIVER must bear an intact relation,
and that relation, which begins to wish that it had
renamed nameless, is just not GIVEN a means of life
by the putative "analysis" that dices it to die-ads.
> Now from this (for those who want things triadic)
> I can easily generate the original relation.
Only because you have obligingly kept all of these bits,
all of these sliced and diced ingredients, together and
warm in that oven of your mind at one and the same time,
a mind like all minds that is, at the very least, roomy
enough to bond TWO pieces to make ONE whole, and I know,
also, a mind farseeing enough to see the punchline that
has been chugging along all the while, on its merry way
to the "Ultimate Reception" (UR): ONE plus TWO = THREE.
> On the other hand, on the second occasion that
> John gives the flue to Mary, you might have
> difficulty in distinguishing between the
> two occassions. This rather leads me
> to think that my analysis provides
> an improved result.
Try to think about what binds our occasions together.
Another Time,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤