Difference between revisions of "Directory:Jon Awbrey/Projects/Notes And Queries"
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday November 05, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchJon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Pieces of the Puzzle=== | ===Pieces of the Puzzle=== | ||
− | ''For the Time Being, a Sleightly Random Recap of Notes'' | + | ''For the Time Being, a Sleightly Random Recap of Notes …'' |
+ | |||
+ | ====Pragmatic Maxim as Closure Principle==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <pre> | ||
+ | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | ||
+ | |||
+ | Inquiry Driven Systems : Note 23 | ||
+ | |||
+ | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | ||
+ | |||
+ | | Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you | ||
+ | | conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception | ||
+ | | of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Consider the following attempts at interpretation: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Your concept of x is your concept of the practical effects of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Not exactly. It seems a bit more like: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Your concept of x is your concept of your-conceived-practical-effects of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Converting to a third person point of view: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. j's concept of x is j's concept of j's-conceived-practical-effects of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | An ordinary closure principle looks like this: | ||
+ | |||
+ | C(x) = C(C(x)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is tempting to try and read the pragmatic maxim | ||
+ | as if it had the following form, where C and E are | ||
+ | supposed to be a 1-adic functions for "concept of" | ||
+ | and "effects of", respectively. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1-adic functional case: | ||
+ | |||
+ | C(x) = C(E(x)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | But it is really more like: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2-adic functional case: | ||
+ | |||
+ | C(y, x) = C(y, E(y, x)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | where: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. y = you. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. C(y, x) = the concept that you have of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. E(y, x) = the effects that you know of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | x C(y, x) | ||
+ | o------------>o | ||
+ | /|\ ^ | ||
+ | / | \ = | ||
+ | / | \ = | ||
+ | / | \ = | ||
+ | e_1 e_2 e_3 = | ||
+ | \ | / = | ||
+ | \ | / = | ||
+ | \ | / = | ||
+ | \|/ = | ||
+ | o------------>o | ||
+ | E(y, x) C(y, E(y, x)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The concept that you have of x | ||
+ | is the concept that you have of | ||
+ | the effects that you know of x. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is also very likely that the functional interpretations will not | ||
+ | do the trick, and that 3-adic relations will need to be used instead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | '''Source.''' [http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/ontology/msg04316.html Jon Awbrey (08 Aug 2002), Ontology List, Peirce List]. |
Revision as of 15:21, 6 November 2008
Peircean Pragmata
Several recent blog postings have brought to mind a congeries of perennial themes out of Peirce. I am prompted to collect what old notes of mine I can glean off the Web, and — The Horror! The Horror! — maybe even plumb the verdimmerung depths of that old box of papyrus under the desk …
Peirce's Law : Tertia Datur And Non
Peirce's Law and the Pragmatic Maxim
Jacob Longshore conjectures a link between Peirce's Law and the Pragmatic Maxim.
- Peirce Lays Down The Law!
- Peirce's Pragmatic Law : A Conjecture
- Extensions on Peirce's Pragmatic Law
- Further Extensions : Out on the Leafy Edge
- Peirce's Pragmatic Law : The Point of It All
Jon Awbrey freely associates to Post N°3.
Pieces of the Puzzle
For the Time Being, a Sleightly Random Recap of Notes …
Pragmatic Maxim as Closure Principle
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o Inquiry Driven Systems : Note 23 o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you | conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception | of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object. Consider the following attempts at interpretation: 1. Your concept of x is your concept of the practical effects of x. Not exactly. It seems a bit more like: 2. Your concept of x is your concept of your-conceived-practical-effects of x. Converting to a third person point of view: 3. j's concept of x is j's concept of j's-conceived-practical-effects of x. An ordinary closure principle looks like this: C(x) = C(C(x)) It is tempting to try and read the pragmatic maxim as if it had the following form, where C and E are supposed to be a 1-adic functions for "concept of" and "effects of", respectively. 1-adic functional case: C(x) = C(E(x)) But it is really more like: 2-adic functional case: C(y, x) = C(y, E(y, x)) where: 1. y = you. 2. C(y, x) = the concept that you have of x. 3. E(y, x) = the effects that you know of x. x C(y, x) o------------>o /|\ ^ / | \ = / | \ = / | \ = e_1 e_2 e_3 = \ | / = \ | / = \ | / = \|/ = o------------>o E(y, x) C(y, E(y, x)) The concept that you have of x is the concept that you have of the effects that you know of x. It is also very likely that the functional interpretations will not do the trick, and that 3-adic relations will need to be used instead. o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Source. Jon Awbrey (08 Aug 2002), Ontology List, Peirce List.