ONT Re: Intension & Extension; Abstract & Concrete; The Struggle With Dichotomies
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
CL = Chris Lofting
CL: The struggle with dichotomies results more so from a failure
to consider the underlying neurocognitive processes that we
as a species use to 'map' reality. In particular to realise
that we use self-reference and so recursion to extract details,
and so make our 'parts lists' but at the species level we are
using the same set of categories, qualitative categories,
to describe the differences where we tie the species set
to a context and so 'make a difference'.
CL: Thus the dichotomy of intent/extent and that of abstract/concrete
all reflect a general mapping to the dichotomy of particular/general
which is reflected in the neurocognitive focus on WHAT/WHERE.
I get lost after this point, but I can say this much about what you say up to here,
in relationship to Peirce's philosophy, anyway, and the traditions that he extends:
1. The paired features of extension and intension, as they apply to signs,
for example, terms and concepts, are not in dichotomy with each other,
that is, not in the sense that a sign must always be in positive
possession of either extension or intension, but never both.
These are aspects, axes, dimensions, directions, modes, or
senses of being for a sign, and most signs are specified
in both of these dimensions. Indeed, the space that is
spanned by this pair of quasi-orthogonal "tensions" is
the very space that is measured by what what Peirce,
in 1865, called the "information" borne by the sign.
This information, then, is the synthetic unity of
the twofold tensions.
2. The relation of abstract to concrete is also more nuanced
in pragmatic thought than a shear dichotomy can encompass.
This is primarily because Peirce recognizes two kinds of
abstraction, namely, "prescissive" and "hypostatic".
More detail later ...
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
CL: The species methodology splits between the concept of idealism
(the 'one', differentiation/intergration within a single box) and
materialism (the 'many', integration across boxes) or from Kant's
perspective the identification of analytical truths vs synthetical
truths where the analytical reflects the encapsulation of <something>
and zooming-in for details through self-reference. This is very precise,
allowing for differentiation and intergration WITHIN the box, but also
'sterile', reflecting the 'parts list' perspective. The synthetical
perspective reflects integration BETWEEN boxes and as such is more
implicit in identifying meaning when compared to the explicit nature
of the analytical but also reflects a link to local 'reality'.
CL: The analytical perspective introduces us to nesting in logics where each
level of differentation introduces a 'new' logic:
CL: [1] A / NOT-A : reflects propositional calculus where we deal with 'wholes'
CL: [2] A+A, A+NOT-A / NOT-A + A, NOT-A+NOT-A : reflects predicate calculus and
the extention of [1] through the introduction of the notion of SOME. gets
into wholes & parts
CL: [3] There are eight categories here reflecting the refinement of [2] as well
as the inclusion of symbol processing in the form of relational emphasis --
gets into the introduction of modal, fuzzy, indicative calculi and so wholes,
parts, static relationships (representations in space - symbols), dynamic
relationships (representations in time -- habits, contracts etc)
>>>--->>> Is there a missing period here?
CL: included in [3] is the necessary categorisation of oscillations where
complex patterns cannot be reduced to a level other than as an oscillation
across categories. This can reflect failure to derive enough categories to
cover 'reality' or, of regardless of how many categories we define we still
get oscillations, we are dealing with a 'complex' pattern outside the sensory
limits of the species or its technology.
CL: http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html
CL: At level [3] (which BTW is not a level but the same space
as [1] and [2] but differentiated more) we find a good set
of qualitative categories, linked directly to feelings within
the species and so applied universally.
CL: The recruitment and abstraction of those basics allows for development
that reflects tetration rather than just exponentiation such that 8 leads
to 64 to 4096 to 16 million + and what prevents any further development is
loss in identifying differences.
CL: In the context of meaning, with the dichotomies, they do NOT represent
oppositions, they represent complementarities where in the below list the
left is a particular that has emerged from, been extracted and encapsulated
from, the right:
CL: abstract <- concrete
intension <- extension
CL: here are some more so you can 'get the picture'
| 'dot' precision <- 'field' precision
| explicit <- implicit
| control (static, hierarchic) - flux (flat, dynamics)
| particular - general
| expend energy - conserve energy
| Analytical - Synthetical
| Analytical - Dialectical
| Absolute (no change) - Relative (change)
| Archetypal - Typal
| Pure - Mixed
| Differentiate - Intergrate
| 'the one' - 'the many'
| Spirit(spiritual) - Matter(material)
| Transcend - Transform
| Discrete - Continuous
| Plato - Democratus
| (difference) - (sameness)
| [sameness] - [difference]
| Idealism - Materialism
| metaphysical - physical
| as interpreted - as received
| Belief - Law
| Ontological - Epistemological
| Subject - Object
| Objective - Subjective
| Within - Between
| Algebraic - Geometric
| theological (particular) - philosophical (general)
| exploit - protect
| positive - negative
| delusion - illusion
| 'refined' - 'raw'
| [raw] - [refined]
| vector - waypoint
| universal context - local context(s)
| what IS (interpreted) - what is NOT
| what WAS (interpreted) - what could have been
| What WILL BE (interpreted) - what could be
| Manic - Phobic
CL: The process of evolution allows for the development of the left column to
become dominant due to its precision BUT the roots are still in the right
column. Development of concepts by the left and the feeding back of those
'into' the right allow for a 'drift' of both sides to the middle.
CL: Furthermore, the dynamics involved, functioning in a hierarchic context,
allows for 'abstract' to be considered as 'concrete' -- IOW the general
categories will remain but context 'shift' emphasis.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤