Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation


 

Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/03/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-1/

<QUOTE Paul Ricoeur>
If exegesis raised a hermeneutic problem, that is, a problem
of interpretation, it is because every reading of a text always
takes place within a community, a tradition, or a living current
of thought, all of which display presuppositions and exigencies —
regardless of how closely a reading may be tied to the *quid*, to
“that in view of which” the text was written.

❧ Paul Ricoeur • The Conflict of Interpretations
https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_9#Points_Forward
</QUOTE>

All,

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s my 48,000 words
worth on the periodically recurring question of logical graphs,
their iconicity, and their interpretation, at least so far as
Peirce’s alpha graphs interpreted for propositional logic go.
A few more actual words, literally speaking, may be called for.
I’ll return to that anon.

Referring to the Table —

• Column 1 shows a conventional name fₙ and a venn diagram
for each of the sixteen boolean functions on two variables.

• Column 2 shows the logical graph canonically representing the
boolean function in Column 1 under the entitative interpretation.
This is the interpretation C.S. Peirce used in his earlier work
on entitative graphs and the one Spencer Brown used in his book
Laws of Form.

• Column 3 shows the logical graph canonically representing the
boolean function in Column 1 under the existential interpretation.
This is the interpretation C.S. Peirce used in his later work on
existential graphs.

Table 1. Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables.png

Resources
=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )
• Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

Regards,

Jon


johncm22
 

Jon
I’m impressed that you have read Ricoeur - my impression is that Americans don’t have much time for Continental philosophy (a huge generalisation of course)

Have you looked at Habermas? He uses Peirce’s work as well as hermeneutics (mainly Gadamer) and critical theory to come up with what he calls a theory of communicative action

He also called it “universal pragmatics” at one time as a nod to both Chomsky and semiotics

You might find it interesting

John

On 3 Oct 2021, at 21:56, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...> wrote:

Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/03/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-1/

<QUOTE Paul Ricoeur>
If exegesis raised a hermeneutic problem, that is, a problem
of interpretation, it is because every reading of a text always
takes place within a community, a tradition, or a living current
of thought, all of which display presuppositions and exigencies —
regardless of how closely a reading may be tied to the *quid*, to
“that in view of which” the text was written.

❧ Paul Ricoeur • The Conflict of Interpretations
https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_9#Points_Forward
</QUOTE>

All,

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s my 48,000 words
worth on the periodically recurring question of logical graphs,
their iconicity, and their interpretation, at least so far as
Peirce’s alpha graphs interpreted for propositional logic go.
A few more actual words, literally speaking, may be called for.
I’ll return to that anon.

Referring to the Table —

• Column 1 shows a conventional name fₙ and a venn diagram
for each of the sixteen boolean functions on two variables.

• Column 2 shows the logical graph canonically representing the
boolean function in Column 1 under the entitative interpretation.
This is the interpretation C.S. Peirce used in his earlier work
on entitative graphs and the one Spencer Brown used in his book
Laws of Form.

• Column 3 shows the logical graph canonically representing the
boolean function in Column 1 under the existential interpretation.
This is the interpretation C.S. Peirce used in his later work on
existential graphs.

Table 1. Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables.png

Resources
=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )
• Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

Regards,

Jon





<Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables.png>


Mauro Bertani <Bertanimauro@...>
 

Hi Jon,
I have read your work on logic and interpretation very carefully.
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/05/01/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs-4/
I think I have developed your work further
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables.png
https://github.com/bertanimauro/cellularAutomata/issues/1#issuecomment-907802404

Here are some of my resources on your theories:
https://bertanimauro.github.io/cellularAutomata/
https://github.com/bertanimauro/cellularAutomata
https://github.com/bertanimauro/cellularAutomata/issues/1

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/03/09/animated-logical-graphs-66/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/03/30/animated-logical-graphs-69/
I'm not sure what you call interpretation is right. Interpretation requires multiple objects to create (more boolean function). A hinted idea could be this:
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-04/msg00129.html


Thanks in advance
Mauro


Lyle Anderson
 

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 02:07 AM, johncm22 wrote:
hermeneutics (mainly Gadamer)
Under the influence of his early teachers such as Hartmann, as well as Friedlander, Gadamer developed an approach to Plato that rejected the idea of any ‘hidden’ doctrine in Plato’s thought, looking instead to the structure of the Platonic dialogues themselves as the key to understanding Plato’s philosophy. The only way to understand Plato, as Gadamer saw it, was thus by working through the Platonic texts in a way that not only enters into the dialogue and dialectic set out in those texts, but also repeats that dialogic movement in the attempt at understanding as such.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/

Bernie Lewin, would you care to comment on this?  It appears to me that some on this forum have been "misguided by teaching that glosses, with incredulity and ignorance, Plato’s project to found philosophy in mathematical formalism."

Best regards,
Lyle






 

Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/04/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-2/

<QUOTE C.S. Peirce>

In the first place there are likenesses or copies — such as statues,
pictures, emblems, hieroglyphics, and the like. Such representations
stand for their objects only so far as they have an actual resemblance
to them — that is agree with them in some characters. The peculiarity
of such representations is that they do not determine their objects —
they stand for anything more or less; for they stand for whatever
they resemble and they resemble everything more or less.

The second kind of representations are such as are set up by
a convention of men or a decree of God. Such are tallies,
proper names, &c. The peculiarity of these conventional
signs is that they represent no character of their objects.
Likenesses denote nothing in particular; conventional signs
connote nothing in particular.

The third and last kind of representations are symbols or general
representations. They connote attributes and so connote them as
to determine what they denote. To this class belong all words
and all conceptions. Most combinations of words are also symbols.
A proposition, an argument, even a whole book may be, and should be,
a single symbol.

C.S. Peirce (1866), Lowell Lecture 7, CE 1, 467–468
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic#Types_of_signs )
</QUOTE>

All,

The Table in the previous post can now be sorted to bring out the
“family resemblances”, likenesses, or symmetries among logical graphs
and the boolean functions they denote, where the “orbits” or similarity
classes are determined by the dual interpretation of logical graphs.

Performing the sort produces the following Table. As we have
seen in previous discussions, there are 10 orbits in all,
4 orbits of 1 point each and 6 orbits of 2 points each.

Table 2. Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables • Orbit Order
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables-e280a2-orbit-order.png


Resources
=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )
• Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

Regards,

Jon


johncm22
 

Jon

The quote you have given does not match the standard Peircean trichotomy of icon, index, symbol. 
See this quote from CP 4.448

"A sign, or, to use a more general and more definite term, a representamen, is of one or other of three kinds:†1 it is either an icon, an index, or a symbol. An icon is a representamen of what it represents and for the mind that interprets it as such, by virtue of its being an immediate image, that is to say by virtue of characters which belong to it in itself as a sensible object, and which it would possess just the same were there no object in nature that it resembled, and though it never were interpreted as a sign. It is of the nature of an appearance, and as such, strictly speaking, exists only in consciousness, although for convenience in ordinary parlance and when extreme precision is not called for, we extend the term icon to the outward objects which excite in consciousness the image itself. A geometrical diagram is a good example of an icon. A pure icon can convey no positive or factual information; for it affords no assurance that there is any such thing in nature. But it is of the utmost value for enabling its interpreter to study what would be the character of such an object in case any such did exist. Geometry sufficiently illustrates that. Of a completely opposite nature is the kind of representamen termed an index. This is a real thing or fact which is a sign of its object by virtue of being connected with it as a matter of fact and by also forcibly intruding upon the mind, quite regardless of its being interpreted as a sign. It may simply serve to identify its object and assure us of its existence and presence. But very often the nature of the factual connexion of the index with its object is such as to excite in consciousness an image of some features of the object, and in that way affords evidence from which positive assurance as to truth of fact may be drawn. A photograph, for example, not only excites an image, has an appearance, but, owing to its optical connexion with the object, is evidence that that appearance corresponds to a reality. A symbol is a representamen whose special significance or fitness to represent just what it does represent lies in nothing but the very fact of there being a habit, disposition, or other effective general rule that it will be so interpreted. Take, for example, the word “man.” These three letters are not in the least like a man; nor is the sound with which they are associated. Neither is the word existentially connected with any man as an index. It cannot be so, since the word is not an existence at all. The word does not consist of three films of ink. If the word “man” occurs hundreds of times in a book of which myriads of copies are printed, all those millions of triplets of patches of ink are embodiments of one and the same word. I call each of those embodiments a replica of the symbol. This shows that the word is not a thing. What is its nature? It consists in the really working general rule that three such patches seen by a person who knows English will effect his conduct and thoughts according to a rule. Thus the mode of being of the symbol is different from that of the icon and from that of the index. An icon has such being as belongs to past experience. It exists only as an image in the mind. An index has the being of present experience. The being of a symbol consists in the real fact that something surely will be experienced if certain conditions be satisfied. Namely, it will influence the thought and conduct of its interpreter. Every word is a symbol. Every sentence is a symbol. Every book is a symbol. Every representamen depending upon conventions is a symbol. Just as a photograph is an index having an icon incorporated into it, that is, excited in the mind by its force, so a symbol may have an icon or an index incorporated into it, that is, the active law that it is may require its interpretation to involve the calling up of an image, or a composite photograph of many images of past experiences, as ordinary common nouns and verbs do; or it may require its interpretation to refer to the actual surrounding circumstances of the occasion of its embodiment, like such words as that, this, I, you, which, here, now, yonder, etc. Or it may be pure symbol, neither iconic nor indicative, like the words and, or, of, etc."

Your one seems to have icons, and then two different kinds of symbols with no indexes.

Would you like to comment or explain

Thanks

John


On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 22:20, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...> wrote:
Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/04/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-2/

<QUOTE C.S. Peirce>

In the first place there are likenesses or copies — such as statues,
pictures, emblems, hieroglyphics, and the like.  Such representations
stand for their objects only so far as they have an actual resemblance
to them — that is agree with them in some characters.  The peculiarity
of such representations is that they do not determine their objects —
they stand for anything more or less;  for they stand for whatever
they resemble and they resemble everything more or less.

The second kind of representations are such as are set up by
a convention of men or a decree of God.  Such are tallies,
proper names, &c.  The peculiarity of these conventional
signs is that they represent no character of their objects.
Likenesses denote nothing in particular;  conventional signs
connote nothing in particular.

The third and last kind of representations are symbols or general
representations.  They connote attributes and so connote them as
to determine what they denote.  To this class belong all words
and all conceptions.  Most combinations of words are also symbols.
A proposition, an argument, even a whole book may be, and should be,
a single symbol.

C.S. Peirce (1866), Lowell Lecture 7, CE 1, 467–468
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic#Types_of_signs )
</QUOTE>

All,

The Table in the previous post can now be sorted to bring out the
“family resemblances”, likenesses, or symmetries among logical graphs
and the boolean functions they denote, where the “orbits” or similarity
classes are determined by the dual interpretation of logical graphs.

Performing the sort produces the following Table.  As we have
seen in previous discussions, there are 10 orbits in all,
4 orbits of 1 point each and 6 orbits of 2 points each.

Table 2.  Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables • Orbit Order
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables-e280a2-orbit-order.png


Resources
=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )
• Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

Regards,

Jon







Lyle Anderson
 

Jon,
Your musing on this topic are emblematic of the distorted, some would say perverted, teaching of Platonic mathematical philosophy in the institutions of "higher" education beginning in the 18th Century and continuing, with a vengeance, today.  These involve vague notions that "forms" are archetypes of "things,"  The idea is that some particular dog expresses the "ideal" dog, or some particular hammer expresses the ideal hammer.  

The real damage from this ideology comes when a materialistic ontology of characteristics is generate for these ideal things is used to divide the "good" from the "bad" objects. (This is the "normative" part of the "science.") The ultimate human consequence of such ideologies it the periodic mass destruction of "the bad" by "the good."  The definition of "good" and "bad" are completely situational. 

 Attributing "good" or "bad" to people based on the epidermal melanin content of their skin changes with the political party in power.  The "self evident" truth that "all men are created equal" can be transformed into "white supremacist hate speech" merely by changing administrations.  In the United States, the current administration has just declared that anyone advocating "all men are created equal" at a School Board Meeting in opposition to "Critical Race Theory," which insists that "melanin is the measure," will be investigated for "terrorism" by the FBI. 

Therefore, this is not a discussion without consequence, and it is important to identify the place where the academics of the "enlightenment" went off track.  In his presentation at LoF50, Bernie Lewin identified this as the rejection of the notion that everything, from beginning to end, is just forms.  "All sensible things are entirely projections of their formal essences, i.e., Surely it cannot be forms all the way down!"  But, indeed, it is "forms all the way down" and "The End was determined from The Beginning."  As I have pointed out before, this latter maxim, is particularly offensive to the "Man is the Measure" crowd because it puts them in their proper place as a mere Character in the Universe instead of the Masters of the Universe.

Our proper place in the Universe is to discover, from the clues given to us by the Creator, what is the role of Humanity in the Cosmic Drama, and, more specifically, what individual part are we intended, by the Creator, to play.  By observing how we interact with the other entities in the Universe that are :not-us," we can begin that journey.  One of the observations is that we can observer is that we can "learn to understand" things.  (Remember that "understanding" means that you can apply a learned "form" to a nearby, or similar, situation.)  What we "learn to understand" is called "knowledge" and we can observe that it can be passed down over the passage of observed time.

We also observe that knowledge can be abstracted to create an understanding that encompasses  more that the original instances to which it was originally applied.  This is what George Spencer-Brown did in Laws of Form, and what Bernie Lewin asserts that Plato did in Laws of Thought.  I would add that the same Laws were revealed to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be written down by Moses, and finally, when the Logos was made Flesh, in the Life, Death and Resurrection of  Jesus Christ, Yeshua Hamashiach.  These latter revelations provide us with a record of the "Captain's Intent," as we say in the Navy, for what we are to do in a general sense.  As described in the Scriptures, specific guidance comes to us from the Noetic realms by inspiration from the Holy Spirit which we can identify with the "observer" in the Trinity of the Form.

We also know from the Scriptures and their adaptation in to Children's Books, that there are going to be Dwarfs in the Barn, at the Last Battle, eating the bounty of Aslan, while thinking it is the same swill they have be eating all the time, and relieving in the fact that they have not be hoodwinked into seeing the beauty of the Kingdom of God.

Don't be a Dwarf!  Believe the Form and the Form will set you free!
Best regards,
Lyle


Lyle Anderson
 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:06 AM, johncm22 wrote:
Of a completely opposite nature is the kind of representamen termed an index. This is a real thing or fact which is a sign of its object by virtue of being connected with it as a matter of fact and by also forcibly intruding upon the mind, quite regardless of its being interpreted as a sign. It may simply serve to identify its object and assure us of its existence and presence. But very often the nature of the factual connexion of the index with its object is such as to excite in consciousness an image of some features of the object, and in that way affords evidence from which positive assurance as to truth of fact may be drawn. A photograph, for example, not only excites an image, has an appearance, but, owing to its optical connexion with the object, is evidence that that appearance corresponds to a reality.

What CSP is calling an "index" seems to correspond to what I would call a "projection".  The scientific definition: "a systematic presentation of intersecting coordinate lines on a flat surface upon which features from a curved surface (as of the earth or the celestial sphere) may be mapped" as well as the psychological definition, "the process of displacing one's feelings onto a different person, animal, or object" both seem to be applicable.

The problem with all of CSP's ontologies, even the earlier ones quoted by Jon, is that while they are supposedly based on pragmatic observations, they ignore the actual pragmatism of how our eyes and brain work to come up with these concepts.  Our eyes focus an image of the objects illuminated by a very small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum on a curved surface of rods and cone shaped cells that generate electro-chemical signals when exposed to that light.  These retinal cells are connected to nerve cells that communicate the individual impulses to an area of the brain we identify as the visual cortex.  All the differentiation into concepts such as "icons, index, and symbol" takes place in the computations in the neural networks of our brains. 

Experiments show that contemplating such things produce dopamine-type chemicals which encourage further contemplation of such things.  However, this does not change the fact that everything starts it's journey to be contemplates as an optical image on the retina of our eyes.  You can go round and round discussing how many "representamen" can dance in a "semodic," but what is the point?

Here is a icon, index, symbol that we can use to define the complex plane and develop all the mathematics needed to understand physical phenomena, and I would assert, along with Plato, all of philosophy, as well.

Unless one wants to continue to run in circles inside the Barn of Piercean Theory, would it not be well to venture into the light of examining an icon, index and symbol that can lead us to things we already know, and then on to who knows what?

May the Form be with you!
Best regards,
Lyle 




johncm22
 

Lyle

Why do you have to pull everything into your fantasies?

These ideas are quite straightforward

Icons represent somehting other than themselves by virtue of their similarity to them
Indexes represent something other than themselves by virtue of their causal or physical connection to them
Symbols represent something other than themselves by virtue of the linguistic or symbolic structures (eg maths) that become structurally coupled within our minds

We dont need any C.S.Lewis childrens stories to understand that

John


On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 20:55, Lyle Anderson <LylePhone@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:06 AM, johncm22 wrote:
Of a completely opposite nature is the kind of representamen termed an index. This is a real thing or fact which is a sign of its object by virtue of being connected with it as a matter of fact and by also forcibly intruding upon the mind, quite regardless of its being interpreted as a sign. It may simply serve to identify its object and assure us of its existence and presence. But very often the nature of the factual connexion of the index with its object is such as to excite in consciousness an image of some features of the object, and in that way affords evidence from which positive assurance as to truth of fact may be drawn. A photograph, for example, not only excites an image, has an appearance, but, owing to its optical connexion with the object, is evidence that that appearance corresponds to a reality.

What CSP is calling an "index" seems to correspond to what I would call a "projection".  The scientific definition: "a systematic presentation of intersecting coordinate lines on a flat surface upon which features from a curved surface (as of the earth or the celestial sphere) may be mapped" as well as the psychological definition, "the process of displacing one's feelings onto a different person, animal, or object" both seem to be applicable.

The problem with all of CSP's ontologies, even the earlier ones quoted by Jon, is that while they are supposedly based on pragmatic observations, they ignore the actual pragmatism of how our eyes and brain work to come up with these concepts.  Our eyes focus an image of the objects illuminated by a very small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum on a curved surface of rods and cone shaped cells that generate electro-chemical signals when exposed to that light.  These retinal cells are connected to nerve cells that communicate the individual impulses to an area of the brain we identify as the visual cortex.  All the differentiation into concepts such as "icons, index, and symbol" takes place in the computations in the neural networks of our brains. 

Experiments show that contemplating such things produce dopamine-type chemicals which encourage further contemplation of such things.  However, this does not change the fact that everything starts it's journey to be contemplates as an optical image on the retina of our eyes.  You can go round and round discussing how many "representamen" can dance in a "semodic," but what is the point?

Here is a icon, index, symbol that we can use to define the complex plane and develop all the mathematics needed to understand physical phenomena, and I would assert, along with Plato, all of philosophy, as well.

Unless one wants to continue to run in circles inside the Barn of Piercean Theory, would it not be well to venture into the light of examining an icon, index and symbol that can lead us to things we already know, and then on to who knows what?

May the Form be with you!
Best regards,
Lyle 




Lyle Anderson
 

John,
It is quite simple: If one wants a model of the Universe and how it works to be consistent and complete, one needs to include everything under the Sun, as Solomon wrote.  One can not draw a distinction without a motive.  That is the "Law" upon which all of this is established.  I include it because that is what makes the "model" complete.

If you don't want to think about the Big Motive, then how about examining Plato's ideas without the filter of "enlightenment" dogma?  How about informing your pragmatic materialism with how our brains manifest our minds?  All of that has been papered over with the invented terms, ontology and syntax that non-believers in the supremacy of the Creator throw up as "their truth."  The fact remains that there are hundreds of millions of skulls piled up to make the altar of this ideology.

Why don't you try to contribute something besides noting that CSP said different things at different times, and Jon just picked the statement that suited his purpose at the time?  How about saying something about the Laws of Form on the Laws of Form Forum?   

If you reject the Law that "one cannot draw a distinction without a motive," then tell us why.  Show us how the Theory of Evolutionary Forms would work.  What does it take to have a random distinction appear?  We are waiting with baited breath!

Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • Discussion 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/13/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-discussion-1/

Re: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/03/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-1/
Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/logical_graphs_iconicity/86051464
::: John Mingers ( https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/913 )

<QUOTE JM:>
I’m impressed that you have read Ricoeur — my impression is
that Americans don’t have much time for Continental philosophy
(a huge generalisation of course).

Have you looked at Habermas? He uses Peirce's work as well as
hermeneutics (mainly Gadamer) and critical theory to come up
with what he calls a theory of communicative action. He also
called it “universal pragmatics” at one time as a nod to both
Chomsky and semiotics.
</QUOTE>

Dear John,

That observation from Ricoeur’s Conflict of Interpretations comes
from a time when Susan Awbrey and I were exploring the synergies
of action research, critical thinking, classical and post-modern
hermeneutics, and Peirce’s triadic relational semiotics.

We benefited greatly from our study of Gadamer, Habermas, Ricoeur
and a little more from Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, aided by the
lucid surveys of Richard J. Bernstein. All that culminated in a paper
we presented at a conference on Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences,
subsequently published as “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”.

( https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry ).

I found Ricoeur’s comment fitting in the present connection because it
speaks to the way identical modulations of a medium may convey different
messages to different cultures and contexts of communication. Conversely,
conveying the same message to different cultures and contexts of communication
may require different modulations of the same medium.

That is precisely situation we observe in the Table from Episode 1,
for ease of reference repeated below. The objects to be conveyed
are the 16 boolean functions on 2 variables, whose venn diagrams
appear in Column 1. And we have the two cultures of interpreters,
Entitative and Existential, whose graphical and parenthetical forms
of expression for the boolean functions are shown in Column 2 and
Column 3, respectively.

Table 1. Boolean Functions and Logical Graphs on Two Variables
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/boolean-functions-and-logical-graphs-on-two-variables.png

Have to break here ... gotta go get our booster shots ...

Regards,

Jon

References
===========

• Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995), “Interpretation as Action :
The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1),
40–52.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

• Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992), “Interpretation as Action :
The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference,
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.


Lyle Anderson
 

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
( https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry ).
Jon's and Susan's paper is very important to the current discussion of Conceptual Barriers.  It is posted on a membership site in Word (97-2003).  Because it is so important to this inquiry, that has unsettled many of you, I converted it to PDF and will attach it to this response.

As you read it, examine the symbols in you mind to see if they represents something Mystical, Conceptual, Synthetic, Similarities, Inductive, Holistic, Transcendent, Abstract, Universal, Theoretical, Qualitative, Simple, Macro, and deal with Wholes, or is it Scientific, Empirical, Analytic, Differences, Deduction, Reductionist, Immanent, Concrete, Specific, Actual, Quantitative, Compels, Micro, and deal with Parts.  

Once you have done that, see if you can find an interpretation that is in the other modality of thought.

Best regards,
Lyle


Lyle Anderson
 
Edited

Another analogy that I have found helpful in uniting left and right brain modalities is the difference between a computer program at rest and a computer program executing on a computer.  I was lucky enough to learn computing when the programs were stored on paper cards, and paper tape.  That gives a physical manifestation to the concept of a "program."   A program at rest is on the side of the Plato (as taught) and a program in execution is on the side of the Aristotle (as taught).  Go through the lists of characteristics and see how that goes.

For those who are having trouble grasping Plato's "Ideals," try thinking of it as the "program" for the Universe.  This is what the Hebrew Sages mean when they say that Elohim wrote the Torah (the Law) before He created the World we live in.  The first chapter of Genesis, they say, describes this programming.  As a computer programmer, I can tell you that while you are writing the program, each step "is Good."  It is only after it starts running that the bugs show up.

The self-referential nature of all this comes when one realizes that we, a substantiation of the "program" of the Universe, are using the procedures that are programmed into ourselves to try to make a representation of that "program" that we can "understand."  By understanding we mean that we can use it to represent other, related, aspects of the "program" in stasis and in execution and also to recognize the limits of our understanding and the limits of our roles in the Universe.

In a very real sense, this approach, exemplified by the Laws of Form, anchors us in the ultimate foundational principles of the universe in a way that none of the "isms" that powerful, influential people have been able to convince some people to believe.

The pragmatism upon which Dewey's  "educational system" is based, has no anchor in the ultimate foundational principles,  The interpretation of facts, and relationships between them, can and is manipulated to achieve a desired result for the proponents of the method.  Contrary views or even contrary facts are suppressed to the point of prohibition.  The common characteristic is that the proponents of the "ism" always seem to end up in charge and back in their "settled situations" no matter how "unsettled" the "not-us" may be.

An educational video made in 1948 captures the dangers of "isms," although it appears to have been overly optimistic about America's response to them.  https://youtu.be/cV9shiNHUXA

Best regards,
Lyle


bruceschuman@...
 

Hmmm (scratches head).  Lot of stuff on the plate in this discussion.  This morning I was messing around with the notion of “dimensionless number” – and now we’re talking about the Laws of God – and oh yes, how we’re going to get people to behave....

 

But let’s say the first step in that agenda – is becoming credible.   Religion is widely (and often reasonably) held in disrepute because it has not escaped the vagaries of metaphor and anthropomorphism – and the authoritarianism based on it.  It’s got a bad track record.  Too many inquisitions, too many over-simplifications, too many ways to create twisted and self-serving unpleasant interpretations.

 

So I like the agenda Lyle is proposing, the overall sketch, what might be really useful in a confused and screwed up world.

 

So this does go to my attitude about remaining “applications oriented”.  The world is confused, people are beating each other over the head with the flags they claim they are serving, and the sea-levels and temperatures are rising.   Are we supposed to figure this out, or be crushed by it?

 

This fits nicely into my notion of grand scheme.  My instinct right now is that the “ontological master container” I think we are imagining might be best understood as a design for optimizing democracy.  Human relationships, collective decision-making at all levels of social organization – and all of it optimized to define or converge towards a kind of global homeostasis, that serves “planetary well-being” in every way.  So I am calling this idea “cybernetic democracy” – and imagining a vast grid of inputs and effectors that supports cooperation and interaction at every level, in something like real time.

 

I thought it was interesting that Biden said something this morning about the importance of cooperation between independent operators when the objective is optimizing the supply chain.  Company 1 is not in the mood to work with company 2.  That seems to be a major reason there are so many ships at anchor outside of Los Angeles (along with a shortage of workers).

 

But let’s take a leap of faith and say that maybe (??) the “divine plan” is for human beings to figure out that globalization and population expansion was inherent in the situation (the evolution of civilization) from the beginning, and if we want to keep eating and breathing, we’re going to have to work something out.  Can networks and control systems bring the world back into happy balance?

 

This is a very macro-scale and idealistic vision.  But I think it is interesting that there are some old-timey heavy-duty engineers in this conversation who might decide this is an interesting project.  Maybe if they know that TRW founder Simon Ramo proposed such things.

 

I started seeing this kind of cybernetic/network-based vision long ago.  Ted Nelson and Xanadu.  Xerox Parc.  All kind of cyberutopia ideas.  And around that time, maybe 40 years ago, I ran into a couple of books by Ramo who wrote at least two books on cybernetic/electronic democracy.

 

Ramo was a pretty amazing guy – and I dare say an engineer’s engineer.  He lived to be 103.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo

 

Those books are still both available on Amazon.  “Cure for Chaos” and “Century of Mismatch”.  I was so fascinated I wrote him a personal letter about those ideas, and was thrilled when I received a hand-typed personal reply.  A lot of this might be fantasy – but maybe it really is the answer.  I can see a hundred reasons why it might be.

 

But one of the reasons I find this so fascinating – is that suspending this entire context into some kind of highly rational and universal divine (pick your word) foundation can be tied into themes and ideas and pockets of insights that are arising all over the world.  Smart good-hearted people are coming together all over the world looking for new ideas, and though it this movement is fragmented and not well-connected, there are innumerable pockets or local groups where this kind of thing is going on.

 

For example, just quickly and at random

https://www.whatisemerging.com/

https://www.gaianet.earth/

https://worldofwisdom.io/

 

Can we derive a top-level ontology that embodies a general form of guiding ethic – or general decision-making criteria – offering suggestions and recommendations based on “the state of the world” (and what we should do about it) – which supposedly it can begin to model?

 

I think a guiding ethic that might work has to do with “the whole” – which take a form that replicates at many different levels of scale (in a “cascade of holons”), and in many different ways.

 

So how do the Laws of Form help inform the well-being of the whole?

 

https://www.manacontemporary.com/editorial/a-brief-primer-on-holons-and-holarchy/

 

***

 

And I might go through the below letter and respond point by pont....

 

Bruce Schuman

Santa Barbara CA USA

bruceschuman@... / 805-705-9174

www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net / www.newcongress.net

 

 

 

 

 

From: lawsofform@groups.io <lawsofform@groups.io> On Behalf Of Lyle Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:33 AM
To: lawsofform@groups.io
Subject: Re: [lawsofform] Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation

 

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: First draft was not unsettling enough to encourage inquiry. ;-)]

Another analogy that I have found helpful in uniting left and right brain modalities is the difference between a computer program at rest and a computer program executing on a computer.  I was lucky enough to learn computing when the programs were stored on paper cards, and paper tape.  That gives a physical manifestation to the concept of a "program."   A program at rest is on the side of the Plato (as taught) and a program in execution is on the side of the Aristotle (as taught).  Go through the lists of characteristics and see how that goes.

For those who are having trouble grasping Plato's "Ideals," try thinking of it as the "program" for the Universe.  This is what the Hebrew Sages mean when they say that Elohim wrote the Torah (the Law) before He created the World we live in.  The first chapter of Genesis, they say, describes this programming.  As a computer programmer, I can tell you that while you are writing the program, each step "is Good."  It is only after it starts running that the bugs show up.

The self-referential nature of all this comes when one realizes that we, a substantiation of the "program" of the Universe, are using the procedures that are programmed into ourselves to try to make a representation of that "program" that we can "understand."  By understanding we mean that we can use it to represent other, related, aspects of the "program" in stasis and in execution and also to recognize the limits of our understanding and the limits of our roles in the Universe.

In a very real sense, this approach, exemplified by the Laws of Form, anchors us in the ultimate foundational principles of the universe in a way that none of the "isms" that powerful, influential people have been able to convince some people to believe.

The pragmatism upon which Dewey's  "educational system" is based, has no anchor in the ultimate foundational principles,  The interpretation of facts, and relationships between them, can and is manipulated to achieve a desired result for the proponents of the method.  Contrary views or even contrary facts are suppressed to the point of prohibition.  The common characteristic is that the proponents of the "ism" always seem to end up in charge and back in their "settled situations" no matter how "unsettled" the "not-us" may be.

An educational video made in 1948 captures the dangers of "isms," although it appears to have been overly optimistic about America's response to them.  https://youtu.be/cV9shiNHUXA

Best regards,
Lyle


johncm22
 

Interesting post Bruce.

There was a lot of somewhat utopean cybernetic ideas around in the 1960s and 1970s. One that I know something of was called Cybersyn


There was a well-known UK cybernetician called Stafford Beer. He wrote several books about organisational cybernetics such as Brain of the Firm, and Heart of Enterprise, and developed a methodology for organisations called the Viable Systems Model. He also wrote a very strong utopian book called Platform for Change. In this book, he worked on four different levels (or metalevels) and each was printed in the book on different cououred paper so that you know what level you were on at any particular time.

The Cybersyn project was a major one although never completed as we will see. In 1971 he was contacted by President Allende of Chile and asked to restructure the entire  Chilean econony along cybernetic principles. Allende was a socialist but not a centrist - he wanted a de-centralised, worker-controlled economy based on real time information and control (something we do not have even today)

The project made significant progress over 18 months based, believe it or not, on the available technology, telex machines!

At that point, Allende was overthrown by General Pinochet who was a cruel dictator for many years.

Lots of ideas in Beer's work which are still very relevant today

John

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 01:47, <bruceschuman@...> wrote:

Hmmm (scratches head).  Lot of stuff on the plate in this discussion.  This morning I was messing around with the notion of “dimensionless number” – and now we’re talking about the Laws of God – and oh yes, how we’re going to get people to behave....

 

But let’s say the first step in that agenda – is becoming credible.   Religion is widely (and often reasonably) held in disrepute because it has not escaped the vagaries of metaphor and anthropomorphism – and the authoritarianism based on it.  It’s got a bad track record.  Too many inquisitions, too many over-simplifications, too many ways to create twisted and self-serving unpleasant interpretations.

 

So I like the agenda Lyle is proposing, the overall sketch, what might be really useful in a confused and screwed up world.

 

So this does go to my attitude about remaining “applications oriented”.  The world is confused, people are beating each other over the head with the flags they claim they are serving, and the sea-levels and temperatures are rising.   Are we supposed to figure this out, or be crushed by it?

 

This fits nicely into my notion of grand scheme.  My instinct right now is that the “ontological master container” I think we are imagining might be best understood as a design for optimizing democracy.  Human relationships, collective decision-making at all levels of social organization – and all of it optimized to define or converge towards a kind of global homeostasis, that serves “planetary well-being” in every way.  So I am calling this idea “cybernetic democracy” – and imagining a vast grid of inputs and effectors that supports cooperation and interaction at every level, in something like real time.

 

I thought it was interesting that Biden said something this morning about the importance of cooperation between independent operators when the objective is optimizing the supply chain.  Company 1 is not in the mood to work with company 2.  That seems to be a major reason there are so many ships at anchor outside of Los Angeles (along with a shortage of workers).

 

But let’s take a leap of faith and say that maybe (??) the “divine plan” is for human beings to figure out that globalization and population expansion was inherent in the situation (the evolution of civilization) from the beginning, and if we want to keep eating and breathing, we’re going to have to work something out.  Can networks and control systems bring the world back into happy balance?

 

This is a very macro-scale and idealistic vision.  But I think it is interesting that there are some old-timey heavy-duty engineers in this conversation who might decide this is an interesting project.  Maybe if they know that TRW founder Simon Ramo proposed such things.

 

I started seeing this kind of cybernetic/network-based vision long ago.  Ted Nelson and Xanadu.  Xerox Parc.  All kind of cyberutopia ideas.  And around that time, maybe 40 years ago, I ran into a couple of books by Ramo who wrote at least two books on cybernetic/electronic democracy.

 

Ramo was a pretty amazing guy – and I dare say an engineer’s engineer.  He lived to be 103.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo

 

Those books are still both available on Amazon.  “Cure for Chaos” and “Century of Mismatch”.  I was so fascinated I wrote him a personal letter about those ideas, and was thrilled when I received a hand-typed personal reply.  A lot of this might be fantasy – but maybe it really is the answer.  I can see a hundred reasons why it might be.

 

But one of the reasons I find this so fascinating – is that suspending this entire context into some kind of highly rational and universal divine (pick your word) foundation can be tied into themes and ideas and pockets of insights that are arising all over the world.  Smart good-hearted people are coming together all over the world looking for new ideas, and though it this movement is fragmented and not well-connected, there are innumerable pockets or local groups where this kind of thing is going on.

 

For example, just quickly and at random

https://www.whatisemerging.com/

https://www.gaianet.earth/

https://worldofwisdom.io/

 

Can we derive a top-level ontology that embodies a general form of guiding ethic – or general decision-making criteria – offering suggestions and recommendations based on “the state of the world” (and what we should do about it) – which supposedly it can begin to model?

 

I think a guiding ethic that might work has to do with “the whole” – which take a form that replicates at many different levels of scale (in a “cascade of holons”), and in many different ways.

 

So how do the Laws of Form help inform the well-being of the whole?

 

https://www.manacontemporary.com/editorial/a-brief-primer-on-holons-and-holarchy/

 

***

 

And I might go through the below letter and respond point by pont....

 

Bruce Schuman

Santa Barbara CA USA

bruceschuman@... / 805-705-9174

www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net / www.newcongress.net

 

 

 

 

 

From: lawsofform@groups.io <lawsofform@groups.io> On Behalf Of Lyle Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:33 AM
To: lawsofform@groups.io
Subject: Re: [lawsofform] Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation

 

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: First draft was not unsettling enough to encourage inquiry. ;-)]

Another analogy that I have found helpful in uniting left and right brain modalities is the difference between a computer program at rest and a computer program executing on a computer.  I was lucky enough to learn computing when the programs were stored on paper cards, and paper tape.  That gives a physical manifestation to the concept of a "program."   A program at rest is on the side of the Plato (as taught) and a program in execution is on the side of the Aristotle (as taught).  Go through the lists of characteristics and see how that goes.

For those who are having trouble grasping Plato's "Ideals," try thinking of it as the "program" for the Universe.  This is what the Hebrew Sages mean when they say that Elohim wrote the Torah (the Law) before He created the World we live in.  The first chapter of Genesis, they say, describes this programming.  As a computer programmer, I can tell you that while you are writing the program, each step "is Good."  It is only after it starts running that the bugs show up.

The self-referential nature of all this comes when one realizes that we, a substantiation of the "program" of the Universe, are using the procedures that are programmed into ourselves to try to make a representation of that "program" that we can "understand."  By understanding we mean that we can use it to represent other, related, aspects of the "program" in stasis and in execution and also to recognize the limits of our understanding and the limits of our roles in the Universe.

In a very real sense, this approach, exemplified by the Laws of Form, anchors us in the ultimate foundational principles of the universe in a way that none of the "isms" that powerful, influential people have been able to convince some people to believe.

The pragmatism upon which Dewey's  "educational system" is based, has no anchor in the ultimate foundational principles,  The interpretation of facts, and relationships between them, can and is manipulated to achieve a desired result for the proponents of the method.  Contrary views or even contrary facts are suppressed to the point of prohibition.  The common characteristic is that the proponents of the "ism" always seem to end up in charge and back in their "settled situations" no matter how "unsettled" the "not-us" may be.

An educational video made in 1948 captures the dangers of "isms," although it appears to have been overly optimistic about America's response to them.  https://youtu.be/cV9shiNHUXA

Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • Discussion 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/21/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-discussion-2/

Re: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/10/04/logical-graphs-iconicity-interpretation-2/
Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/logical_graphs_iconicity/86051464
::: John Mingers ( https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/918 )

<QUOTE JM:>
The quote you have given does not match the standard Peircean trichotomy
of icon, index, symbol. See this quote from CP 4.448 […]
</QUOTE>

Dear John,

I hesitate to call any sketch Peirce gave of the big three sign types
a “standard Peircean trichotomy of icon, index, symbol”. Several
considerations give me pause on this point.

• Peirce gave so many instructive and useful characterizations
of the main sign types over the years I'd be hard-pressed to
declare any one text definitive. It is not that we have a
hermeneutic circle where every text is granted equal weight,
only that it takes more analysis to define the terms as yet
undefined and to sort all terms involved in order of their
mutual and sole dependencies.

• A cursory inspection of Peirce's sign types, from major to minor,
shows we rarely if ever have true k-tomies, in the sense of exhaustive
and mutually exclusive categories. True, we often speak of dichotomies
and trichotomies in loose terms, but now and again loose speech has led
to sinking ontologies.

Oops, more to say but need to break for midday sustenance …

Regards,

Jon