[Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear FISers,
With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is becoming a matter of scientific interest that statements by them and others to the effect that "systematic research of what the 'shadows' are a part" has not been done are made routinely. First of all, the logic in reality  of Lupasco about which I have been talking here for 10 years, includes a new mereology in which the dynamic relations between part and whole are set out for discussion. Second, while the 'diagram' of Merleau-Ponty may be considered interesting as philosophy and as a foundation of religious belief, I see no reason to include it, without heavy qualification, in a discussion of the foundations of information science.
Thank you,
Joseph
----Message d'origine----
De : sji at pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À : ag659 at ncf.ca, fis at listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Hi Krassimir,
I agree with you that  "The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed
 is a systematic research from what they are part."
In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part of the irreudicible triad consisting of
Form (A), Shadow (B) and Thought (C).  The essential notion of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, and C cannot be reduced to any one or a pair of the triad.  This automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part of the whole triad
 (which is, to me, another name for the Ultimate Reality), as Form and Thought are.  In other words, the Ultimate Reality is not Form nor Shadow nor Thought individually but all of them together, since they constitute an irreducible triad.    This idea is expressed
 in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate Reality is the complementary union of the
Visble and the Invisible World (see Table 1 attached).  Apparently a similar idea underlies the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), according to my son, Douglas Sayer Ji (see his semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to
 the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance of B. Wilshire, attached). 
All the best.
Sung
        
From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John Collier <ag659 at ncf.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
To: fis at listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Daer Krassimir, List
I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of the best. However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or logical proof by itself, in its formalism, does
 not show anything at all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to experience in a comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my dissertation, and I take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others that are pretty strong as well.
I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical connections. If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without this, the formalism is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to give formal names to things and assume that this
 identifies things, Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as automatically defective, since they think
 that formal representation is all that really rigorously explains things. This sort of thinking (in Logical Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction as people started to ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to observations. It is
 a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere -- my PhD thesis was about this problem. It hurts me to see people making the same mistake, especially when it leads them to bizarre conclusions that are compatible with the formalism (actually,
 it is provable that almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, up to numerosity).
I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness,
John
On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed is a systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you like:
CATA => F => CATB => G => CATC
 
CATA => H => CATC
 
F ○ G = H
where
F, G, and H are functors;
CATII 
Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;
CATA Î CATII and
CATC Î CATII  are the categories of
mental models’ categories;
CATB Î CATII  is the category of
models’ categories.
Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in further posts.
;
Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in further posts.
;
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words. 
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical languages.
Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in the mathematical reasoning, in one hand, and, as the Bourbaki experiment had shown, not everything is ready to be formalized.
How much of FIS members understood what I had written above?
The way starts from philosophical reasoning  and only some times ends in mathematical formal explanations.
Friendly greetings
Krassimir
 
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-- 
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier
 web page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20180226/da3517e2/attachment.html>