Saturday, April 18, 2009

"The Missing Teleology"...

The Truth of The History of Logic___Peirce vs. Russell

Peirce's Logic of Continuity: Existential Graphs and Non-Cantorian Continuum, by Fernando Zalamea

Semiosis and Pragmatism: Toward a Dynamic Concept of Meaning, by João Queiroz, Floyd Merrell

The Harvard___Peirce Family Conspiracy, Against Charles Sanders Peirce
The Singular Experience of A Peirce Biographer

Thought is what it is only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the community.

No present actual thought (which is [in itself] a mere feeling) has any meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is actually thought, but in what this thought may be connected with in representation by subsequent thoughts, so that the meaning of a thought is altogether something virtual.

Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us. -- Charles Peirce

(in answer to a friend…)
…Hi (all), it's the least I could do for such a clear ontological expose of these complex geometries, expecially since you've centered the explanation from a philosophical point of view, as philosophy is what I've been deeply studying for the last few years, although I've studied it quite thoroughly for over thirty years. Back in the `80's I came to the conclusion, while studying economics, that the math was wanting, so my best idea of where to find math I could trust was in the field of physics. I made some advances toward a clearer math for economics, but was never thoroughly satisfied, so I kept searching. Of course that took me into many fields of logics, maths, and philosophies, finally finding the most useful in the early Greeks, i.e., the Greek geometers, then the Arabic geometers. They are still my best applications of new renditions of maths applied to economics, through the Pythagorean theorem, especially by using the Pythagorean right triangle and scaling the three sides to represent all areas of empire and nation, etc., histories over time. I just let the three sides equal the three concepts of government/power/liberty, the longest side; corporations/money/power/liberty, one right angle side; and the people/power/liberty, the other right angle side. By shortening and lengethening the two right angle sides, all eras of history can be represented, no matter what the form of gov. or economic/legal/liberty/incentive conditions exist. It's easiest to see the relationships by actually extending the sides into the real squares of length representations on all three sides. Anything from Mao's worst state of communism, to dictatorships of the opposite power control, to the best incentive cases of American democracy, from the `40's to the `70's can be represented, mathematically accurately by just plugging in the total global numbers, which I have total access to, over my many years of research.

It's just the fact I realized philosophy offers the only dialogics available, powerful enough to relay all the simple/complexity of the systems I'm trying to get exposed, thus my bent toward philosophy, especially epistemology, and teleology. About a year ago I started putting together the geometry with statistical mechanics and true probability averages. That knowledge came from Charles Sanders Peirce, which my grandfather had taught me as a child, and my rediscovery of his importance, as America's premiere scientist, philosopher, logician, mathematician of the 19th century, which I was studying anyway, as I'd long ago decided most modernism was bull. I've been re-studying all I can find of him over the last six years, and the key lies with him, in putting this all together to make heads and tails of the modern world. I not only study his ontology, but his epistemology, and his teleology. These three also reveal the mereology, the philosophy of the one and the many. No other philosopher offers this completeness, not even all the moderns put together. Peirce said more by the pragmatic maxim, 100+ years ago, than all the moderns put together. In case you're not familiar with it, it covers his complete scientific method; "The Pragmatic Maxim___“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” C.S. Pierce"

Below, in my signature, I've included my re-interpretation of the same maxim. Most philosophers have just over-looked or entirely missed the mathematical importance of the above quote. Notice, it says "effects". That means "all possible effects", if one follows his complete works, which are extensive, really extensive___It covers all scientific possibilities. This one pragmatic maxim is a complete scientific methodology, for any idea or concept conceivable, and believe me, it works. So, in answer to your question, it's Peirce as my present main study, yet I do study and follow all I can find in math, physics, philosophy, economics and law, etc., plus the semantic web, the pragmatic web and the knowlege web, as presented by the Fins, Hintikka and Pietarinen, and Jesse Prinz from England, I believe, as he's so clear as to how perception's geometry scientifically functions. There are thousands of others related to Peirce, but not enough time to state. The Fins have an excellent library of Peirce's works, as do many nations of the world, especially the central intelligence agencies and militaries of most important nations, as they've been following his scientific methods for years, really since becoming more well known back in the thirties, through C.I.Lewis. Best sources in America are at Arisbe, Peirce's home site, and his original homestead in Penn. As a matter of fact, I'll be stopping in there in a couple of weeks, when I head to Maine. And yes, it was a terrible winter in Maine, as my children have informed my wife and I.

Now, as to your ideas. I'm, as you may have gathered, more interested in the teleological geometry of the universe, than the ontology, even though I do extremely like what you've presented, and especially titling it ____ ____, but I've always told everyone "physics lacks true ground". By this I mean, physically, mathematically and philosophically. To me, it's all a constructed/gauge theory system, lacking true ground. There's no ground in a priori universal or nature's given geometric and combinatoric maths or true fundamental physical fields, as the fields and maths always refer to something after the Big-Bang, which may not be true, as to big pop's existence/occurence? We just can't truly know or prove such a model, but I think we can logically prove a more robust teleological model, from the logic of absolute necessity. "Iff" the universe exists, it absolutely had to exist eternally, in some form, and the most likely would be some form of absolutely fundamental field of potential mass/energy combinations, before any first star/rock, etc. So far, physics, except for a few and rare breed of quantumists, have shown little speculation before the big pop. So, what's your teleological positions of the absolutely necessary prime mover and fundamental field/mass/energy?___Before the big pop?

Just between me and the record... I'd call this "The Missing Teleology"...

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

No comments: