SUO: Re: Dyads
Tom Gollier wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Your transmission:
>
> > I think that we also need to distinguish "dichotomous thinking" (DT)
> > from "dyadic thinking" (DT). In spite of my acronymaniac confusion,
> > there is yet a "difference that makes a difference" between the DT's --
> > one has to do with the number of values, {0, 1}, {F, T}, {evil, good},
> > and so on, that one imposes on the cosmos, the other has to do with
> > the number of dimentions that a per-sona puts on the face of the deep,
> > that is to say, the number of independent axes in the frame of reverence
> > that one projects on the scene or otherwise puts up to put the cosmos on.
>
> kind faded out after the "number of values", but do you mean
> a difference between, say, two values of truth and falsity
> on the one hand, and all things being divided into subjects
> and predicates, functions and arguments, and such as that
> on the other? If so, I'd like to second the notion, as not
> only are the two values much less odious, if no less rigorous,
> in their applications, but they're often maligned as naive or
> simplistic by arguments which actually should be applied to
> the idea, naive and simplistic in the extreme, that there
> are only two kinds of things.
>
> Tom
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Tom,
There may be a connection -- I will have to think about it --
but "trichotomic", "dichotomic", "monocotyledonic", whatever,
refer to a number of values, 3, 2, 1, whatever, as in the range
of a function. In contrast, "triadic", "dyadic", "monadic",
as a series, refer to the number of independent dimensions that
are involved in a relation, which you could represent as axes
of a coordinate frame or as columns in a data table. As the
appearance of the word "independent" should clue you in,
this will be one of those parti-colored woods in which
the interpretive paths of mathematicians and normal
folks are likely to diverge.
There is a typical sort of phenomenon of misunderstanding that often
arises when people imbued in the different ways of thinking try to
communicate with each other. Just to illustrate the situation for
the case where n = 2, let me draw the following picture:
Dyadic Span of Dimensions
^ ^
\ /
\ /
o o
|\ /|
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
v \ / v
<-----o-----o-----o----->
Dichotomic Spectrum of Values
This is supposed to show how the "number of values" (NOV) thinker
will project the indications of the "number of axes" (NOA) thinker
onto the straight-line spectrum of admitted directions, oppositions,
or values, tending to reduce the mutually complementing dimensions
into a tug-of-war of strife-torn exclusions and polarizations.
And even when the "tomic" thinker tries to achieve a balance,
a form of equilibrium, or a compromising harmony, whatever,
the distortion that is due to this manner of projection
will always render the resulting system untenable.
Probably my bias is evident.
But I think that it is safe to say, for whatever else
it might be good, tomic thinking is of limited use in
trying to understand Peirce's thought.
Just to mention one of the settings where this theme
has arisen in my studies recently, you may enjoy the
exercise of reading, in the light of this projective
template, Susan Haack's 'Evidence & Inquiry', where
she strives to achieve a balance or a compromise
between foundationalism and coherentism, that is,
more or less, objectivism and relativism, and
with some attempt to incorporate the insights
of Peirce's POV. But a tomic thinker, per se,
will not be able to comprehend what the heck
Peirce was talking about.
Cheers,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤