Inquiry Into Inquiry

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Balance
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/08/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-balance/

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2005/12/09/inquiry-into-inquiry/

All,

Everyone knows what it means to have obstacles to overcome or events to understand and
how we go hunting for whatever action, model, or theory will do the trick. Other times
we have a scheme or theory all ready in mind — like a key we try on every door we find.

It is not unusual to shift from one stance to the other, perhaps many times a day,
and even the most balanced among us may pass through phases of life exploring the
extremes in one direction or the other. Luckily if all too painfully, an inward
sense of disharmony or an outward clash with reality will nudge us back to center,
if we but pay the due attention.

Regards,

Jon

On 12/21/2012 2:28 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Peircers,
Here are the prettified versions
of some recent posts to the List:
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ml
Demonstrative And Otherwise
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ms
Constants, Inconstants, and Higher Order Propositions
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-mM
Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 1
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-n0
Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 2
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-na
Salubrious Solstice!
Jon

Peter Jones

Jon and all,

I realise, in brief, the extent of your project -

https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Problem

- but reading your post makes me wonder about the core aspects of my own - nursing / health care - focus that also happens to have generic utility.

Is this just 'word association' as you mention - edited:
----------------------------------------------------

"Everyone knows, means, obstacles, overcome, events, understand and
how we go hunting, action, model, theory..
times, scheme, ready in mind — like a key we try on every door we find.

shift from one stance to the other, perhaps many times a day,
balanced among us, pass, phases of life, exploring, extremes in one direction or the other.

painfully, an inward sense of disharmony, outward clash with reality will nudge us back to center,
pay the due attention."

- or are the above all integral to (assumed / subsumed within) Hodges' model?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=line+of+sight

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=direction

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=model

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=door

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=center

Your inclusion of key, door made me wonder on the nature of the 'key' as

cognitive
physical
political
social
spiritual (all beyond bio-metric associations)

- and the 'door', open, jammed open, in disrepair, a portcullis, invisible, false all leading to thresholds

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=threshold

Regards,

Peter

Peter Jones
Community Mental Health Nurse, Tutor & Researcher
Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD"
http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021, 16:15:26 BST, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net> wrote:

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Balance
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/08/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-balance/

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2005/12/09/inquiry-into-inquiry/

All,

Everyone knows what it means to have obstacles to overcome or events to understand and
how we go hunting for whatever action, model, or theory will do the trick.  Other times
we have a scheme or theory all ready in mind — like a key we try on every door we find.

It is not unusual to shift from one stance to the other, perhaps many times a day,
and even the most balanced among us may pass through phases of life exploring the
extremes in one direction or the other.  Luckily if all too painfully, an inward
sense of disharmony or an outward clash with reality will nudge us back to center,
if we but pay the due attention.

Regards,

Jon

On 12/21/2012 2:28 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Peircers,

Here are the prettified versions
of some recent posts to the List:

http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ml

Demonstrative And Otherwise
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-ms

Constants, Inconstants, and Higher Order Propositions
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-mM

Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 1
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-n0

Theme One • A Program Of Inquiry : 2
http://wp.me/p24Ixw-na

Salubrious Solstice!

Jon

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/09/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-1/

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Balance
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/08/inquiry-into-inquiry-on-balance/
Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/inquiry_into_inquiry/85461438
::: Peter Jones ( https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/862 )

<QUOTE PJ:>
I realise, in brief, the extent of your project —

• Inquiry Driven Systems
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Overview )
• Problem
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Problem )

nursing / health care — focus that also happens to have generic utility.
</QUOTE>

Dear Peter,

I have a few bits of work on my plate at the moment —
I will try to make a fuller reply in a day or two.

My wife, Susan Awbrey, and I have various degrees of acquaintance with nursing research, a smattering for me and much more for her. Sue's doctorate is in Educational Systems Design. She served as an assistant professor and director of learning resources at the Michigan State University College of Nursing through most of the 1980s, collaborating with nurse researchers on issues of instructional design and information technology. During 1989–91 we both had positions at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) School of Nursing in Galveston. I had a faculty associate position consulting on research statistics, computing, and database management, meanwhile doing research on the hot new areas of AI applications to medical knowledge, diagnosis as abductive reasoning, physiological cybernetics, the novice/expert shift, and bridging the gap between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.

Regards,

Jon

Resources
=========

• Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/27/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-3/ )

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

Lyle Anderson

Peter,
It is interesting that you have locked on the QUAD.  It too comes from the Laws of Form.  George Spencer-Brown explained this in the Preface to the First American Edition, Laws 1972, when he introduces imaginary numbers.

"Of course, as everybody knows, the paradox in this case is resolved by introducing a fourth class of number, called imaginary, so that we can say the roots of the equation above are i, where i is a new kind of unity that consists of a square root of minus one.

What we do in Chapter 11 is extend the concept to Boolean algebras, which means that a valid argument may contain not just three classes of statement, but four: true, false, meaningless, and imaginary. The implications of this, in the fields of logic, philosophy, mathematics, and even physics, are profound."

While the OODA Loop originated in aerial dog-fighting tactics, the QAUD of Observe, Orient, Decide, Act is generally applicable to any type of engagement.

In the world of Systems Analysis, the four classic steps are: Model the physical system, convert that to a "logical," i.e. non-physical, model, make the changes desired to the logical model, and, finally, convert it back to a physical model of the new system.

When one looks at the myriad of process improvement methodologies, I have yet to find one that isn't based on plan/replan, communicate you plan, implement your plan, check to see if the plan worked.

Interestingly enough, the Throne of God is surrounded by Four Living Creatures, with faces like a Lion, Calf, Man, and Eagle.  As reported by Ezekiel, when the Throne goes travelling, the stroboscopic effect of its rotation makes each Living Creature appear to have four faces.  I will offer the mapping of: Lion==Political, Calf==Sociology, Man==Interpersonal, and Eagle==Sciences.

If you do not know about Laws of Form, there is a person on the Forum, Leon Conrad, who has posted an excellent set of videos about it.  You really need a guide to help you understand this subject matter.  Here is the link to the first one: https://youtu.be/hZ1yMJ59T2E

Best regards,
Lyle

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 2
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/11/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-2/

Re: Peirce List
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/thrd14.html#00407
::: Phyllis Chiasson
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00427.html
Re: Peirce List
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/thrd4.html#00106
::: Edwina Taborsky
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00106.html

<QUOTE PC:>
Phenomenology is (with math) the underpinning of both scientific inquiry
and everyday reasoning. Improve one's capability for observation and
classification and you improve his/her ability to think and reason.
“Neglected Argument” has interesting things to say about the
categories and this process as does “What Pragmatism Is”.
</QUOTE>

Cf: A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God

Cf: What Pragmatism Is

Although the Neglected Argument was one of the first Peirce essays my
gave me for contemplation — I remember coming to an unconventional, indirect
argument, ontological proof sort of epiphany near the end — I can't say I've
paid all that much attention to Peirce's theodicy since those days, but I can't
recall reading anything he wrote to distinguish his perspective from what is
ordinarily called “deism”. Does he ever declare for the (male personified)
anthropomorphic God, so capitalized, of Abraham, Luther, Calvin, or any other,
literal, non‑metaphorical theism of that kind?

Resources
=========

• Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/27/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-3/

Regards,

Jon

Lyle Anderson

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 08:15 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Neglected Argument
I am not sure if CSP ever got around to actually describing the Neglected Argument, but I found this part of the essay particularly apropos of our discussions on Laws of Form.

"No bygone fashion seems more grotesque than a panache of obsolete wisdom. I remember the days when a pronouncement all the rage was that no science must borrow the methods of another; the geologist must not use a microscope, nor the astronomer a spectroscope. Optics must not meddle with electricity, nor logic with algebra. But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire. "

It seems that The Laws of Form start with the ultimate answer to the origin question:  Draw a distinction.  The First Distinction that became the Universe, or Universes if we follow CSP, we inhabit had to be drawn by some Entity outside of the First Distinction, who exists in the space that is cleaved by the First Distinction, at the intention of the Drawer of the First Distinction.

"That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications. Otherwise, why venture beyond direct observation? Illustrations of this principle abound in physical science. Since, then, it is certain that man is able to understand the laws and the causes of some phenomena, it is reasonable to assume, in regard to any given problem, that it would get rightly solved by man, if a sufficiency of time and attention were devoted to it. Moreover, those problems that at first blush appear utterly insoluble receive, in that very circumstance, as Edgar Poe remarked in his The Murders in the Rue Morgue,[3] their smoothly-fitting keys. This particularly adapts them to the Play of Musement."

I am really beginning to warm to Charles Sanders Pierce!  He seemed to have grasped the Laws of Form, and the only reason he didn't articulate them was because the Creator had left that task to George Spencer-Brown.

May the Form be with you!
Best regards,
Lyle

Cf: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 3
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/15/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-3/

Re: Peirce List
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/thrd14.html#00407
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/thrd4.html#00106
Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/09/11/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-2/

The fact most neglected about the Neglected Argument is
its character as an abductive argument, a “Holy Guess”
if you will to believe, and as such the most fallible
and mutable of hypotheses a happily fallible creature
can create. Its object is an hypostatic abstraction
from human experience and the hypostasis has reality
in virtue of whatever properties would be consistently
assigned to it. Does the object of the guess take an
active part in human evolution or does human evolution
play its part in making and reshaping its best guess?

| O time, thou must untangle this, not I.
| It is too hard a knot for me t'untie.
|
| — Twelfth Night • Act 2 Scene 3
|
https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_11#A_Projective_Point_of_View

Submitted pursuant to a case study on the
role of phenomenology in science and the
role of abductive inference in inquiry.

Regards,

Jon

Resources
=========

• Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/27/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-3/

Lyle Anderson

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 06:24 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Does the object of the guess take an
active part in human evolution or does human evolution
play its part in making and reshaping its best guess?
Dear Jon,

Now that I have looked up the meaning of "abductive" argument or reasoning, I can recognize "human evolution" as described in Darwin's Origin of the Species, as an exemplar! Abductive reasoning at it's finest! The fact that, apparently, Charles Sanders Pierce invented the term in the last third of the 19th Century, practically makes this another triadic relationship!

After reading what the Stanford Philosophers had to say about it, I am liking what CSP actually wrote about his ideas more and more:

One main difference between his conception and the modern one is that, whereas according to the latter, abduction belongs to what the logical empiricists called the “context of justification”—the stage of scientific inquiry in which we are concerned with the assessment of theories—for Peirce abduction had its proper place in the context of discovery, the stage of inquiry in which we try to generate theories which may then later be assessed. As he says, “[a]bduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea” (CP 5.172); elsewhere he says that abduction encompasses “all the operations by which theories and conceptions are engendered” (CP 5.590)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/peirce.html

Jon, you wrote: "
Its object is an hypostatic abstraction from human experience and the hypostasis has reality in virtue of whatever properties would be consistently assigned to it." Let's unpack this for the uninitiated:

"Its [matter to which thought or action is directed] is a[n] [formal operation that transforms a predicate into a relation] from human experience and the [essence or underlying reality] has [the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or notin virtue of whatever [essential or distinctive attributes or qualities] would be [with no or very few exceptions] [fixed or specified in correspondence or relationship] to it."

In short, an modern abductive reasoner transforms predicates into relationships, and then uses predicates to try to explain his relationships.  Sure enough, the abductive reasoner often resorts to systems of "symbols" or "sign" to represent his "relationships," but sub-vocalization into predicates is never far away.

This is why you are stuck running in circles, eating the glorious bounty the Creator has put before you, but thinking it is turnips, hay, and donkey swill.

Now I completely understand your situation.  You are stuck in academia (the barn) with all the other Dwarfs, and the dominant Dwarfs will brook no humbug such as "there is a Creator, and we live in His world, doing the things He wants done."  You are all like the courtiers and townspeople who admired the Emperor's Fine New Cloths.  As Jesus said, it takes a child to see the Truth.  Try to go back and capture that time when you first "determined your left hand from your right."  Then move forward slowly to times before the Donkey Swill began to be fed to your innocent young mind.

Know the Form, and the Form will set you Free.
Best regards,
Lyle

Lyle Anderson

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:07 PM, Lyle Anderson wrote:
for Peirce abduction had its proper place in the context of discovery, the stage of inquiry in which we try to generate theories which may then later be assessed. As he says, “[a]bduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea” (CP 5.172); elsewhere he says that abduction encompasses “all the operations by which theories and conceptions are engendered” (CP 5.590)

Applying True Piercean ideas to the Laws of Form, means that it is an "explanatory hypotheses" arrived at by George Spencer-Brown through a contemplative process.  As he wrote, "It was only after contemplating this theorem for some two years that I found the beautiful key by which it is seen to be true for all possible algebras, Boolean or otherwise."

He was writing about Theorem 16. The BridgeIf expressions are equivalent in every case of one variable, they are equivalent. This follows directly after the Seventh canon. Principle of relevance: If a property is common to every indication, it need not be indicated.  Before proceeding to the proof of Theorem 16, he notes: "In these proofs we evidently supposed the irrelevance of variables other than the one we fixed arithmetically. It may not at first be obvious that we can ignore the possible values of the other variables, but the supposition is in fact justified in all instances (and, indeed, in all algebras), as the following proof will show."

We recall that the transition from primary arithmetic to algebra is accomplished by indicating tokens that represent expressions in the primary arithmetic that are, currently, "unknown" in value.  Now by "unknown" we mean that the observer who is doing the indicating of the distinctions has yet to take the steps needed to calculate the value of the "unknown" token.  These same steps are applied to all inquiries involving "unknown" things, ideas or concepts.

That this is proven to be applicable to all algebras, connects everything to the First Distinction, and makes the various eddies in philosophy that try to avoid a First Distinction, just what they are: Attempts to avoid the obvious answer to the Question of the Universe.  The task at hand is to test the Laws of Form as the master hypothesis about the true nature of reality using observation, pattern matching and deductive reasoning.  All of which are firmly connected to the already know systems that operate in accordance with the Laws of Form.

From this we can safely conclude that there is no need for abductive reasoning while doing a inquiry into to anything, except as needed for inspiration to bridge gaps in our chain of understanding.  I assert that it is "safe to conclude" because, once the bridge is identified by abduction, all of the steps taken to prove or demonstrate truth are deductive.  Anyone wanting to abandon deduction as a valid step in demonstration must ask themselves and tell the rest of us what they would replace it in their inquiries into anything.

This places the Laws of Form as expounded by and in the manner they were expounded by George Spencer-Brown, and the ultimate foundation to any Inquiry into Inquiry.

Best regards,
Lyle

 1 - 9 of 9