**Abduction As An Aspect of Retroduction, Phyllis Chiasson**

**Charles Sanders Peirce___Encyclopedia Britannica**

*Triadic Imagination___"To process infinite sense to finite logic, isomorphically transduce to the universal law of pure liberty".*

*"A vision properly motivated which recognizes others' desire for an equal right to happiness & to be free of suffering can lead to wonders".*Sumaya Kazi

*A New Universal Arithmetic of Complexity Science___Isomorphic Transduction___“The highest pragmatic probability state, of the highest semantic knowledge state possible, respecting the highest universal law of pure liberty, is the highest state of wisdom possible.”*

As a child, I always wanted to catch that biggest of bullfrogs, but why? Recently, while delving deep into the epistemic mechanics of imagination and ‘logica utens’, as quite well explained by Phyllis Chiasson, I seemed to have put together a rather interesting teleological, epistemic and ontological geometric mechanics of basic perception. Quite funny how that bullfrog lead the way to such deep discoveries. Starting last summer, I was making headway into the inner depths of my own personal epistemic mechanics. It was quite a deep study of self and hundreds of other’s ideas about epistemic agents and agency, and Jesse Prinz, one Mr. Pietarinen, Charles Sanders Peirce and many others guided my search, and I finally had to peer deep into my very own self-imagination mechanics, and this is where the bullfrog played its main part.

Over the winter I’d figured, with the help of a good friend, basicly how perception mechanics functioned almost entirely geometrically. We talked hundreds of hours about this and every related subject under the sun, while coming to almost entire grounded agreements of the results___He influencing me some, and I influencing him some, but in the end, almost total agreement. Over the last month, I’ve just been re-assessing the winter’s research and ideas, and decided to venture the final course of self-exploration. I first tried to see personality development and the tremendous role imagination played at my earliest of memory. Knowing perception functioned geometrically, I wanted to know how this fundamental arithmetic and logic, of the basic “logica utens” functioned. What was the basic computer of computation of computation, allowing imagination/perception to function as we know it certainly does? I’d earlier written about the epistemic limits of logic, truth and math, but now my ideas had more centered on the operation of pure imagination, and Peirce’s law of pure liberty, as relates to imagination/abduction and arithmetic, as per

**Kant’s**arithmetic liberty ideas, which I’d published earlier, on this blog. Now, I wanted to know how the imagination actually fundamentally, arithmetically/geometrically produced ideas, concepts, hypotheses, etc. Why did the base imagination of mind choose arithmetic sense?

This is where the bullfrog comes in. As a child, why did I always want to catch the biggest bullfrog? Why does anyone do such things? Then my memory realized the central premise of Peirce’s logic, that it was “grounded in the social principle”. As a child, we’re all up against that which is bigger than us, and has power over us___parents, older friends, older relatives, large animals in the forests, large industrial machines, etc., etc., over-ruling our direct free spirit wishes, over-ruling our very liberties. This is not our desire, as many a musician and poet have pointed out, such as, “Stranger In A Strange Land”, or “I Was Born A King Of My World”, etc. All these ideas started returning to me when I thought about trying my damndest, to catch that biggest of bullfrogs, for years___he escaped my efforts many a time. Well, I finally caught him, but that’s a different part of the story than what I want to concentrate on here. My point is, we are naturally, by culture’s pressures, drawn to ‘largeness’ for protection, because all around us is largeness that is suppressing our wishes___especially the “No”, “No”, “No”, from our parents. The “Yes” usually runs about 10%, if that, of the “No’s”. They being bigger than us, as the child, automatically makes us want to be bigger, to gain our own autonomy and sovereignty___thus our striving to the arithmetic edge of advancement.

Now, you may not think much of this at first, but think about it in the evolutionary social context. All through history, this history is repeated, generation after generation, ad-infinitum. The child strives for sovereignty anew, always against the same odds of size dominating his/her freedom/liberty desires, so the imagination/perception has been, and is being, programmed mathematically to the innate sovereignty’s need for independence, through arithmetic size sovereignty, even the girls, as they are defended by the larger adults, early, and husbands, later in life. Oh, some marry smaller husbands, but not many. So, our minds are primarily mathematically conditioned, from birth, to the arithmetic advancement of our species___Arithmetic___The main former of our perception and imaginations, as to social contexts. I imagined several years about catching that biggest of bullfrogs, before I finally caught him. That’s a lot of time considering size. And it wasn’t just the bullfrog. It was the prime social context of most of my thoughts, as I felt I was being suppressed by every factor that was bigger, and had some sort of power over me, all the way up to about 16 years of age, whether adults, church, school or even play, with the mixed older and younger ‘kids’. That is until I got big enough to defend my desires.

What does all this have to do with the deep epistemic mechanics of imagination and ‘logica utens’ computations? If we look at a triadic perception of, 1.Imagination; 2.Logic; and 3.Arithmetic, I think I can show how the prime mind of imagination computes its eclectic realities, as to whether ‘God’, or 'No God’ is chosen. It actually matters not one bit whether ‘God’, or 'No God’ is chosen, as the mind of unlimited eclectic imagination, governed by its prime evolutional arithmetic necessities of survival of desires, computes identically arithmetically on either side of the equation, when the mind is questioned as to its mathematical validity of quantifications. I know this will make no difference to the religiously bent, but anyway… I as a child was raised in a natural mathematical, scientific, ‘logica utens’ and ‘logica docens’ family atmosphere, so my mind leans to the eclectic scientific side of the equation, but I was also raised with the mystical exaggerations of ‘the god myth’ at the same time, as my mother and grandmothers were both scientific and religious. So, I had the eclectic choice of either side of the imagination’s potentials, but gramps, my father and uncles were the dominant ‘no god myth’ major influence of my life, thus, I always imaginistically theorized about the scientific epistemic possibilities of ideas, far more than the ‘old wive’s tales’ of the women of my life. And yes, I was always thinking epistemically from the earliest ages I can remember, because gramps, being a scholar of Peirce, a businessman and politician, taught me, and the whole family, about the science and epistemic philosophy of Peirce. Gramps also taught my mother, even of a different upbringing, about Peirce, as she was a genius in her own right, about science and math, which greatly helped all my life. My father was always scientific and mathematical versed.

If the mind of ‘logica utens’ imaginationally thinks primarily mathematically from birth, it easily sees the true ground of the given perception’s geomentry, as the mind can process nothing, without first processing the first inductions of the real world, and this is by necessity, an isomorphic geometrical processing, as has been stated elsewhere on this blog. I’m here giving no credit to any ideas that do not conform to the ‘Mideval’ versions of common sense and realism, as to how direct perception/imagination truly functions. This is my choice, as it was Peirce’s, as I see all other choices as non-scientific, since they do not conform to the prime necessary arithmetic of this vast mind mechanics of ours, or perhaps simple, when reduced to a pure geometry of ideas. The question I had always asked, as have many philosophers, scientists and mathermaticians, is, “Is the continuum of mind/imagination required to be a state of ‘absolute infinite continuum’, to process the entire world of sense and science?” I will state emphatically___Yes it is.

If the mind of imagination and ‘logic utens’ did not possess the prime state of an “absolute infinite continuum”, and I truly mean absolute infinite, not rational or any of the constructed maths of infinites and infinitesimals, but truly absolutely unlimited, it would possibly lack the choice mechanics necessary to process eclectically the trillions of ideas that pass through all the citizens’ minds of the planet___that’s 6 billion times possibly millions of personal ideas for the entire population___computationally rather large. Now, of course no one individual processes all the ideas of everyone, like the ‘Borg of Startrek’, but we must, and do, have the computational capacity to process any of these ideas we come into contact with, and process them quite successfully, if a bit of effort is put forth. If the mind didn’t possess this infinite eclectic capacity, it would not function properly. It would possibly face the ‘Turing halting problem’, and we know this has never happened, nor do I have any doubt, that it ever will. Our technological computers may still face the halting problem, but I can, in no fashion, see how it would ever be possible for a human mind to face such a problem. I know my mind has never halted, even though sometimes I wish it would :)

This infinite eclectic perceptual processor of ours does make the prime choices, that will guide our lives though, and most likely in very early childhood, as anyway, that’s my case. And I don’t think I’m special. Some will choose the mystic path. Others will choose the scientific path. Yet, all will choose, ever if it’s a path between these two poles, they’ll still choose, even if it’s by not choosing___That’s still choice. If we are of the group that willingly chose the scientific path, we know our minds are inclined either toward the arithmetic or the logical, and here’s where the great difference is in the scientific community. I hope by showing this early childhood psychology of choice function, we can settle the arithmetic verses the logical question, of primary function.

I as a child had no logical function without the mathematics of the preceding ideas___The small and the large. I may have had psycho-logic moments of the senses, but my imagination was always obeying its prime natural given arithmetic function. The first prime given geometric inductions, IMO, can not be violated by any human being. They begin passively, before we have any say over this ground induction geometry, and I don’t think anyone can argue that, or change it. If they do, they are certainly using psycho-logic, as nature’s logic of necessity far precedes our knowing abilities of any logic concepts___That’s just a scientific fact of the universe’s natural given logic, and nature’s natural given passive logic. Anyone who disputes this is not using logic, whether of the “Docens” or the “Utens”. Anyone can throw psychology into the equation, but when the scientist asks for the cognitive psychology of his/her assessments, we’re right back to the arithmetic ground of pure logic again, so, go round in circles, with no true ground all you wish, you’ll eventually land in arithmetic ground___The Pure A Priori Arithmetic, or Combinatorics of… The bullfrog rules…

Given the necessary acceptance of arithmetic ground of imagination and ‘logica utens’, we must now look at the absolute necessity of the infinite continuum mechanics of mind. The question to ask, to develop the validity of, is “What Use?” What use validity does the absolute infinite continuum contain? By adhering to Peirce’s science of philosophy, the answer becomes quite clear. The use is found through use’s pragmatic interpretation and meaning to humanity. As Peirce stated, “Logic is found in the social principle”. So, what is the mathematical social principle’s use of a true infinite continuum? To answer this we must have man’s highest pure goal, and again, I revert back to Peirce’s ‘law of pure liberty’. And from here back to Kant’s arithmeticization of pure liberty___Our highest scientifically valid ideal, which I posted earlier on this blog. Mentally, we counldn’t successfully compute the logic necessary to solve our world’s many social contract collisions, unless we possessed the infinite continuum’s eclectic capacity to hold as many nation’s concepts in our minds at once, as is legitimately necessary, to solve such problems as exist. It’s only through this extremal capacity of concept processing, through our natural infinite imagination continuum, that we may have a chance of solving the planet’s dire and immense problems.

‘Iff’ imagination sees the law of pure liberty, as our highest arithmetically possible goal, of pure knowledge attainment, reaching toward pure social contract wisdom, we can compute, through prime algebraic logic, and fundamental geometry, all the inter-relational functions, and quantification functions necessary, to solve all the world’s problems. But, it’s only through the use of such unlimited abilities and capacities of an absolute infinite continuum’s existence, that this is possible. We must go beyond the rational systems of math, to the meta-maths and trans-rational understandings of the use of this infinite continuum’s isomorphic abilities of sound scientific synthetic reasoning, of ‘infinite use’ that functionally links the infinite with the finite. Though we only need use finite maths and geometries to solve the real world’s problems___We must use the infinite triadic synthetic arithmetic thoughts of ‘greatest good’, ‘best order’, and 'truest value' of Socrates’, Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Kant’s and Peirce’s logic functions and knowledge systems of liberty and sense, to prescind our physical world’s dyadic arithmetics. The understanding of solutions is in the triadic transc

*nded imagination’s infinite absolute continuum…*

**(i)**The Triadic Continuum of Infinity, Finity and its Isomorphic Transducer --> The Absolute Infinite Truths of “Greatest Good Possible” “Best Order Possible” “Truest Value Possible” --> A Moral Arithmetic Quantifier Logic --> Absolute Infinite to Finite Transpires and Transduces in Abduction/Imagination --> Infinite Sense and Emotion Transduce to The Finite Law of Pure Liberty --> The Infinities Translate to Finite/Infinite Liberty --> The Universal Law of Pure Liberty --> The Infinite Absolute Concepts of Truth Can Be Arithmetically Finitized --> The Transcendence___Transc

*nded.*

**(i)**The ‘Bullfrog’ has spoken…

## No comments:

Post a Comment