Category Archives: fourfolds

Mitama

  • Ara-mitama (荒魂): wild soul
  • Nigi-mitana (和魂): tranquil soul
  • Saki-mitama (幸魂): love soul
  • Kushi-mitama (奇魂): wise soul

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

[*12.74]

Every Which Way

  • Top-down
  • Bottom-up
  • Inside-out
  • Outside-in

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_(2015_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_In_(film)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/every%20which%20way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Which_Way_but_Loose

https://www.thersa.org/blog/2014/04/top-down-bottom-up-side-to-side-inside-out-4-types-of-social-change-and-why-we-need-them-all

What’s your approach to innovation?

[*12.28]

<>

Our Demarcation Problem

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan from The Demon-haunted World

As science is confused with pseudo-science, as real news is conflated with fake, we need much better ways to judge the truth of the information we require to be good citizens. Unfortunately, in this age of nontraditional television networks, kitchen-sink cable, and internet news sources, our information sources can be subverted by entities that wish to bend our mindset to their agenda, rather than giving us measured and reasonable knowledge. When these entities wish to fracture and divide our polity, our social fabric strains and unravels.

Here are four (or five minus one) distinctions for information or knowledge claims, based upon their type of warrant, or context of truthfulness. Three of them are modalities from Kant’s doctrine of judgments, and I suggest that Dialectic could reasonably be added to them, but I do not know if they form a complete set or not. I would suppose they can be ordered by their level of assurance, from low to high. Another more scientific option might be Probablistic instead of Dialectic, based upon measurements or even theoretical arguments. Certainly there must be something between a bald assertion or the questionable and the certain.

  • Assertoric: assert to be true or false without (inherent) proof
  • Problematic: assert as possibly true (or false)
  • Dialectic: philosophically reasoned as true or false (qualified?)
  • Probabilistic: quantified or theoretically argued as mostly true or false
  • Apodictic: clearly provable as true (or false) or logically certain

From Wikipedia:

Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which merely assert that something is (or is not) true, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the possibility of something being true. Apodictic judgments are clearly provable or logically certain. For instance, “Two plus two equals four” is apodictic. “Chicago is larger than Omaha” is assertoric. “A corporation could be wealthier than a country” is problematic. In Aristotelian logic, “apodictic” is opposed to “dialectic,” as scientific proof is opposed to philosophical reasoning.

For example, the president’s language (“many say”, “everyone knows”, “we’ll see”) is full of assertoric and problematic claims (to be extremely generous), and perhaps that’s the limit of his ability. I don’t think he could manage part of a measured dialectical argument if pressed, and if he manages an apodictic statement it would be like a clock that tells the time correctly twice a day. To have the head of the executive branch of our government to be so untrustworthy in providing information and knowledge hurts us all, and misleads those that takes his words at face value.

And then there are the news sources that cater to the president and his followers. Perhaps they present some warranted information, but mix plenty of misleading punditry in to tickle the fancy of unquestioning minds. As a result we have citizens who only digest information from sources that appeal to their sensibilities. Some of these news sources disseminate their fabrications via a flood in social media and the internet, because our ability to stifle them is almost nonexistent. And when these news sources originate from foreign countries wanting to influence us for their own purposes, how is it that they are allowed to continue?

In truth, people can be misled on scientific topics like the coronavirus and COVID-19, vaccinations, face masks, climate change or global warming, environmentalism and pollution, pseudoscience, and political topics like mail-in voting, Russian meddling with the 2016 and 2020 elections, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, etc. The lists seem almost endless.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodicticity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertoric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/

Immanuel Kant: Logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_conspiracies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon

[*11.84]

The Four Tendencies

In a new spin on the four temperaments, here is a book that describes four “tendencies” for personality profiles, based on meeting or resisting inner and outer expectations.

  • Upholders: Meets inner expectations, meets outer expectations
  • Obligers: Resists inner expectations, meets outer expectations
  • Inquirers: Meets inner expectations, resists outer expectations (Questioners)
  • Dissenters: Resists inner expectations, resists outer expectations (Rebels)

Further Reading:

Gretchen Rubin / The Four Tendencies: the indispensable personality profiles that reveal how to make your life better

The Four Tendencies Quiz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments

Two Factor Models of Personality

[*12.60]

<>

The Logic of Universalization Guides Moral Judgment

From the abstract:

To explain why an action is wrong, we sometimes say, “What if everybody did that?” In other words, even if a single person’s behavior is harmless, that behavior may be wrong if it would be harmful once universalized. We formalize the process of universalization in a computational model, test its quantitative predictions in studies of human moral judgment, and distinguish it from alternative models. We show that adults spontaneously make moral judgments consistent with the logic of universalization, and report comparable patterns of judgment in children. We conclude that, alongside other well-characterized mechanisms of moral judgment, such as outcome-based and rule-based thinking, the logic of universalizing holds an important place in our moral minds.

  • Universalization: What if everyone did this?
  • Rule-based: An implicit or explicit rule says I may not do this.
  • Norm-based: I shouldn’t do this because many say not to.
  • Outcome-based: How would it be bad if I did this?

Further Reading:

Sydney Levine, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Laura Schulz, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Fiery Cushman / The logic of universalization guides moral judgment

PNAS first published October 2, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014505117

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/10/01/2014505117

<>

Charles Fourier and the Theory of Four Movements

Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.

— Michael Faraday in his Laboratory Notebook

There are many things to scratch one’s head about in Charles Fourier’s “Theory of the Four Movements,” first published anonymously in 1808. However, his progressive political thought influenced many in France and in the United States. Fourier was a utopian and a socialist, and thought social cooperation and unity were the only ways to overcome the discord and strife he observed in his times. His theory is based on a hierarchy of “movements” within four realms, from low to high: the Material, the Organic, the Animal, and the Social.

As he elaborated on these movements, Fourier claimed that social history went through four main periods of unhappiness and happiness, ascending from a chaotic period, through two harmonious periods which were each seven times longer, before descending into another chaotic period of length equal to the first. In order to achieve this happiness, he thought that we must envision and engineer a new social order to achieve a common purpose. Nowadays, of course, socialism has a noxious connotation to those of the right-leaning and hyper-capitalist persuasion.

  • Ascending Chaos
  • Ascending Harmony
  • Descending Harmony
  • Descending Chaos

And now, the United States teeters on the brink of choosing four more years of terrible leadership, all to maintain the status-quo of funneling more money into the pockets of the wealthy and more power into the hands of the already dominant.

Further Reading:

Charles Fourier / The Theory of Four Movements

https://libcom.org/library/charles-fourier-theory-four-movements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourierism

https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/get-thee-to-a-phalanstery-or-how-fourier-can-still-teach-us-to-make-lemonade/

https://quadriformisratio.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/886/

https://quadralectics.wordpress.com/4-representation/4-1-form/4-1-4-cities-in-the-mind/4-1-4-2-the-future-city/

[*9.62, *12.63]

<>

 

 

Classes of Automata

Here is one way to carve up abstract (mathematical) automata into different classes of complexity (from low to high).

There is a somewhat different and older one that is based on the Chomsky Hierarchy (where ND stands for non-deterministic), and the associated language or grammar that they recognize:

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

[*11.138]

<>

Ouroboros

Lo! ’t is a gala night
Within the lonesome latter years!
An angel throng, bewinged, bedight
In veils, and drowned in tears,
Sit in a theatre, to see
A play of hopes and fears,
While the orchestra breathes fitfully
The music of the spheres.

— From The Conqueror Worm, by Edgar Allen Poe

The worm, turns.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48633/the-conqueror-worm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_Worm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_a_worm_will_turn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worm_Ouroboros

[*12.64]

<>

 

Agent, Actor, Critic, and Spectator

To understand all (causally) is to forgive all (normatively). To understand all (normatively) is to forgive nothing, for it is to talk about norms, not people; about mathematics, in which there is no error and no responsibility, and not about mathematicians, who do make mistakes.

— Lewis White Beck

Here is a set of distinctions by philosopher Lewis White Beck that may have some relevance to thinking about human determination and action. Beck was most renowned as a scholar of Kant.

  • Agent: a person X who thinks they are responsible and free in choices and actions (essentially a “free” agent), with motives and reasons
  • Actor: a person X who thinks they are an agent but is judged by a Spectator Y to not be free and instead determined by external causes
  • Spectator (diagrammed as Viewer): a person Y who observes any X and explains their actions exclusively by causal terms, and so judges them to be an Actor
  • Critic: a person Z who is in a position to agree with X that X is indeed an Agent or a Spectator Y that X is instead an Actor

A great deal of language revolves around explaining our behavior and that of others, both for the benefit or detriment to ourselves and others. All of us would usually rather be free and responsible agents than causally determined actors, but certainly we are not entirely free to act no matter how little we are not. Philosophical discussion of human action continues to be commonly cast into terms such as agency, action, intention, and even authenticity.

Beck later returned to these ideas for his Ernst Cassirer lectures, and a book of them was published in 1975. By the title and a short description, it appears that Beck reduced the fourfold to a mere dual, in order to simplify as well as elaborate his ideas (but I cannot say for sure as I have not read it). Still, I like the original fourfold scheme that in my mind bears likenesses to others presented here (for example, Modal Verbs.)

Further Reading:

Lewis White Beck / Agent, Actor, Spectator, and Critic, The Monist , April, 1965, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 167-182
http://www.jstor.com/stable/27901588

Lewis White Beck / The Actor and the Spectator: foundations of the theory of human action (1975)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_White_Beck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/

[*4.40, *4.108, *7.38, *9.66]

<>

A Man, a Plan, a Canal, Panama

You may think I’m just being silly by presenting everyone’s favorite palindrome.

But now notice the rough correspondence of these four things to the Four Causes.

Further Reading:

https://www.americanheritage.com/man-plan-canal-panama

[*12.62]

<>