SUO: Re: Effective Logical Formalism -- Literature Notes
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ELF. Literature Note 4
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Murray, et alea,
I continue to continue to prescind ...
The pace of dialogue is already causing me a loss of phase, so let me
make amends by explaining that the "pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS)
is only one of the reading glasses or teleoscopes that I use to read
just about any text that traverses my orbs, not to be confused with
what the object text may be portend in the course of its own orbit.
MA: So, the question for me seems always to boil down to where on the
chin the hook is placed, and that hook seems to be "context" or
"interpretation", "situation", or whatever we want to call the
thing that gets us from abstract to concrete, from the rubber
to the real road. I don't want to see SCL used as a rubber
to keep us from having contact with the road.
A modicum of propadeutic prophylactic is never a bad idea,
but we are just talking words here, not sticks and stones.
By "chin" you take it on the wrong mens rea, and you need
not fear that mere signs in mind can stop the world, well,
not in that sense, not if it wants to make its impression
on you, well, not forever.
MA: So in LBase, do we want our interpretation early or late in the process?
I have not read far enough to know the authors' intent.
From previous discussions you should know that my vote
for interpretation, in the senses of it that are known
and loved by me, would be "early" and "often".
MA: Can we design a system that is purely abstract and obtains its
usefulness only in a later usage/interpretation, or are we able
to design a logical system that has interpretation built into its
very core? My feeling on Peirce is that he was attempting to design
a system that included interpretation as part of core of the overall
model, that it wasn't an add-on, an option, an afterthought.
Here I am hoping that it may serve a purpose to reuse the
discussions that we have been having recently hereabouts
on the subject(s) of abstraction. Here is the linkage:
HAPA. Hypostatic And Prescisive Abstraction
01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10964.html -- Continuous Predicate
02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10965.html -- Dormitive Virtue
03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10966.html -- Dulcitive Virtue
04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10991.html -- Math Abstraction
05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11022.html -- Reading Runes
06. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11025.html -- Hypostatization
07. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11028.html -- Abstract Objects
08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11079.html -- Subjectal Abstraction
09. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11239.html -- Definition of Predicate
10. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11271.html -- Higher Intentional Logic
11. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11277.html -- Logical Reflexion
12. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11290.html -- Epea Apteroenta
HAPA. Hypostatic And Prescisive Abstraction -- Discussion Notes
01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10967.html -- Metaphormazes
02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11227.html -- Deciduation Problems
03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11228.html -- Thematic Recapitulation
04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11229.html -- Field Key, Kitchen Recipe
05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11231.html -- Indirect Self Reference
06. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11232.html -- Genealogy & Paraphrasis
07. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11234.html -- Intention & Reflection
08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11236.html -- Rhematic Saturation
09. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11237.html -- Relational Turn
10. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11240.html -- Tabula Erasa
11. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11267.html -- Directions
MA: I like the way you're going about this though. I think it's very
important to seriously look at the assumptions in something like
LBase, perhaps to the exclusion of the rest of it, until we feel
like we either agree with or at least understand the ground that
we're on. Then we move forward with the rest.
Sounds like a plan.
MA: Just so nobody freaks out, I'm not normally as orthographically
obsessed as Jon. It just came out that way. :-)
You know my method: OWTBORA ("obsession within the bounds of reason alone").
Jon Awbrey
Correcting some earlier typos:
The "pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS) is not your Dalton's theory of signs,
that requires literal "hooks" to hook up objects, signs, and interpretants.
I do remember with some fondness at least one old book by Fritjof Capra,
and if you have in mind, now, the one I mean, it would be good to recall
just how much our ground-level physics has changed since Dalton's time,
and then ask yourself, "Why is our logic still so backwardly atomic?"
Incidental Musements:
http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~mikec/P2421_Notes/Ground/Ground.html
http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~mikec/P2421_Notes/Phasors/Phasors.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o