ONT RE: Intension & Extension; Abstract & Concrete; The Struggle With Dichotomies
Hi Jon,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2002 1:36
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: Seth Russell; John F. Sowa; Robert E. Kent; Ontology
> Subject: 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".
>
..only two kinds? ... be wary here... the problem with Peirce's perspectives
are that they are 'out of date' or more so approximations of what we now
know re how 'in here' works.
For starters, his trichotomous perspective which influenced his work on
logic etc seems to have stemmed from an idealist approach and as such failed
to clearly differentiate static and dynamic relationships. This was probably
due (and still is in general) to the influences of the physiological,
concrete, level processes of the Brain on the abstract considerations of the
universal. The particular affect is due to the reciprocal relationship of
energy and subjective time experience where high detail analysis, high
precision, requires high energy and as a consequence the distortion of
subjective time where time 'stops' (or is slowed down enough to be treated
as 'secondary' and even as reversible - this reflects the mechanistic
perspective that comes with analytical thinking.)
Thus focusing attention to exagerate and reveal details distorts subjective
time; this is a 'stimulus/response' level, concrete level, process of the
species and is very useful a la local context survival. However, when
recruited by 'mind' it comes with some 'delusions' built-in and from them
can stem the trichotomy perspective which is useful at general levels but
becomes increasingly unmanagable (as Peirce found when he extended his
number of signs). The reason for this 'problem' is the failure to
differentate what Peirce called thirdness in that philosophical categories
are supposed to be 'universal' and NOT require context to determine meaning;
Peirce's thirdness contains the distinctions of mediation/representation
which should have been split into two but were not - either due to failure
to recognise static/dynamic relationships or else an attempt to maintain the
notion of trichotomies.
The simple fact is - bifurcation rules. ;-)
In our brains the analytical method seems to work through self-referencing,
recursive processes, such that a dimension opens up which is used to
identify the full range of categories derivable from a dichotomy. The
recursion acts to entangle the elements of the dichotomy such that the
abstract/concrete dichotomy can be fleshed out to give a dimension where
each point reflects a difference in meaning within the root distinctions.
As such there are algebraically unlimited numbers of different notions of
abstraction where in reality the number is reduced to a set where we can no
longer identify differences in the sameness (as in Aristotles 256 syllogisms
now reduced to 19 - or is it 10?)
As such the A/NOT-A of dichotomies with recursion becomes
A .................... NOT-A
and each point is a valid perspective that can develop vertically (a matrix)
forms); as such each position to the left of NOT-A is a sign position
(abstraction is a SIGN process emphasising the intergration of threads, of a
pattern into a 'thing' that represents the pattern and as such the process
of abstraction reflects the mediation/representation of thirdness).
The above 'matrix' is a property of analytical thinking and as such reflects
the fractal influence in that the process of recursion encodes the whole,
the original distinctions, in all parts such that each part can serve as an
indicator of the whole - metonymy at work.
Thus ANY of the previously listed/mentioned dichotomies are extendable BUT
so are they as sets if ordered in a hierarchic manner which forces the
orthogonal perspective. Thus I can have:
A.................~A = meaning 1 (dimension A)
B.......~BB.......~B = meaning 2 (dimension B within A)
C..~CC..~CC..~CC..~C = meaning 3 (dimension C within B)
and the sum is the set of possible meanings of the whole. This hierarchic
format is reflected in Peirce a la:
firstness - stimulus (S) - dimension A)
secondness - response (R) - dimension B)
this is mindless. Then we shift levels to introduce mindful forms Peirce
'maps' into the one category of thirdness:
mediation (akin to secondness) (C - 2^3 leads to FOUR root A/NOT-A
distinctions not three)
representation (akin to firstness)
The process of mediation focuses on the space 'inbetween' the S/R and out of
that comes representation as a symbol (stimulus) and/or a habit (response).
The representations can then replace/stand-for the original
stimulus/response.
The infinite loop is where mediation can be recalled to 'refine'
representation ad infinitum.
Simply put, a trichotomous perspective may seem 'useful' but reflects lack
in precision. Its attraction seems to be 'instinctive' (see
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html) but it lacks precision and I
think this is due to the problem of dealing with dynamics due to the
perceptual distortions caused by the physiology that has 'infected' our
abstract ideas re reality etc.
Best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus