SUO: RE: Re: Detached Ideas On Virally Important Topics
Dear Jon,
I note your frustration, it is reciprocated, but I really can't
work anything more out from what you choose to say.
Regards
Matthew
===============================================================
Matthew West http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Principal Consultant Shell Visiting Professor
Operations & Asset Management The Keyworth Institute
Shell Services International The University of Leeds
http://www.shellservices.com/ http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
===============================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: 21 March 2001 15:26
> To: Arisbe; Complexity Group; SemioCom; Stand Up Ontology
> Cc: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> Subject: 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
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>