Category Archives: Philosophy

fourfolds, Philosophy

Kant’s Reflective Perspectives on Experience

2 Comments

The web site of Stephen R. Palmquist has a great wealth of material on fourfolds in relation to Kant’s as well as his own philosophy. From my own initial reading of his extensive material I have tried to choose a canonical Kantian fourfold which has the most relevance to my project.

The fourfold shown above Dr. Palmquist calls Kant’s “reflective perspectives on experience”. Consisting of the logical, the empirical, the transcendental, and the hypothetical, these facets bear a close analogical likeness to many of the fourfolds presented here.

Logical: Analytic a priori
Transcendental: Synthetic a priori
Hypothetical: Analytic a posteriori
Empirical: Synthetic a posteriori

Dr. Palmquist also has many of his own books available on his web site for the interested reader. I will certainly be returning to his web site in the future for much enjoyable study.

References:

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp2/KCR3.htm

[*7.68, *7.84]

<>

fourfolds, linear logic, logic, Philosophy

J.-Y. Girard’s Transcendental Syntax

1 Comment

With the recent release of the paper found at the link below, logician Jean-Yves Girard has updated his program for a transcendental syntax to version 2.0. The first version was available last year only in French, but this new manuscript is available in English. Girard is known for his refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, Linear Logic, and his exploration into the mechanisms of logic, Ludics.

In this new paper, Girard describes four levels of semantics, his infernos: alethic, functional, interactive, and deontic. They descend into the depths of meaning, and thus are numbered from -1 to -4. The negatively first, alethic, is the layer of truth or models. The negatively second, functional, is the layer of functions or categories. The negatively third, interaction, is the layer of games or game semantics. The negatively fourth, deontic, is the layer of normativity or formatting.

Further Reading:

https://girard.perso.math.cnrs.fr/Archives.html

[*7.34]

<>

fourfolds, ontology

Philippe Descola’s Four Ontologies

Leave a comment

References:

Philippe Descola / Par-delà nature et culture

Structuralist Diagram of Philippe Descola’s Lecture, “Anthropology and Ontology”

[*7.42, *7.43, *7.44]

<>

epistemology, fourfolds

Stances Towards Truth

1 Comment

What are the different stances towards truth? I can think of four: relativism, pluralism, dogmatism, and skepticism.

In Relativism, truths are relative to the individual, and may be associated with their personal perspective. Truths are necessarily different as individuals are different and cannot be ranked as to their correctness between individuals.

In Pluralism, truths are separate and may be combined but usually cannot be unified under one overarching truth. Truths are pragmatically different and are true in principle or function.

In Dogmatism or Absolutism, there is one truth, whether we have access to it or not. Truth is absolute and necessarily consistent with itself.

In Skepticism, there may be no absolute truths. Truth is always in doubt and there is no certainty.

I believe that few if any of us are purists with respect to any of these stances towards truth. Each of us combines these four stances into a filter that we use to adopt and maintain our personal ensemble of truths. Some of us may be highly skeptical, with a little dogmatism about our skepticism, plus a bit of relativism and pluralism thrown in for good measure. And so on. Our filter will change depending on how we perceive the current truth of those stances.

Similarly, social organizations may also operate the same way as individuals in constructing a filter towards truth. Whether the organization’s filter arises as an average of the individual’s filters, or from some inherent property of the organization, remains open.

Whether there is one transcendent truth or possibly no absolute truths depends on your valuation of dogmatism and skepticism, respectively. And thus it doesn’t depend on what you or anyone thinks at all.

Notes:

Perhaps Absolutism would be a better choice than dogmatism in the diagram.

The post The One and the Many may be used to develop these stances better.

[*7.30]

<>

architectonics, epistemology, fourfolds, hermeneutics, ontology, Philosophy

Walter Watson and David Dilworth’s Archic Matrix

11 Comments

Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been many conflicting stances both towards claiming what exists (ontology), and how we can know our claims are valid (epistemology). There are the oppositions between idealism and realism, between rationalism and empiricism, between thinking all is change and all is changeless, between all is many and all is one, and so on. One approach to overcome these oppositions is to combine them to form their Hegelian synthesis. Another is to deconstruct them à la Derrida. Another pluralistic approach is to consider that there is a germ of truth on each side of the conflicting stance, an aspect of reality for which that stance is valid. Some might think that pluralism is the same as relativism, but it is not. Relativism and pluralism form yet another philosophical opposition like others mentioned above.

Regardless of the validity of pluralism, it can be very useful to analyze what philosophical stances are possible and how they relate to one another. The philosopher Richard McKeon created a rich schema for philosophical semantics that deserves greater recognition. This schema was both simplified and elaborated on by Walter Watson and David Dilworth in their books about the Archic Matrix. There are four main aspects, all exemplified by ancient philosophers: the Sophists, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle. Everything else is a combination of these original aspects, or essentially a rehashing of them. The main aspects are perspective from the Sophists, reality from Democritus, method from Plato, and principle from Aristotle. These partition “what is”, however it is conceived, into four aspects, each of which can be interpreted in four different ways.

Considering Whitehead’s Criteria, note that perspective has consistency, method has coherency, reality has applicability, and principle has adequacy.

Further Reading:

Walter Watson / The Architectonics of Meaning: foundations of the new pluralism

David A. Dilworth / Philosophy in World Perspective: a comparative hermeneutic of the major theories

http://www.philosophicalprofile.org/test/index.php

http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2010/07/walter-watson-architectonics-of-meaning.html

https://www.ottobwiersma.nl/philosophy/archic_matrix.php

[*4.112]

<>

epistemology, fourfolds

The Cynefin Framework

2 Comments

From Wikipedia:

The Cynefin framework is a model used to describe problems, situations and systems. The model provides a typology of contexts that guides what sort of explanations and/or solutions may apply.

There are actually five domains in the framework, with the fifth one being disorder. It is not shown here. The domains are different in how cause and effect relate to one another within them. They are in the order of light transmission through the four elements: bright, light, dim, and dark.

For each domain, there is a common approach, each containing sense and respond. Simple: Sense – Categorize – Respond. Complicated: Sense – Analyze – Respond. Complex: Probe – Sense – Respond. Chaos: Act – Sense – Respond. For Simple and Complicated, sense comes first, and for Complex and Chaos, sense comes second. Respond ends the approach for each domain. Can one say the Simple and Complicated are a priori, and Complex and Chaos are a posteriori? Or that Simple and Complicated are rational, and Complex and Chaos are empirical?

Interestingly, if we examine the element of the approach that is not sense or respond, they have a close approximation to the fourfold of the Scientific Method.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin

[*7.24]

<>

fourfolds, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Lucretius: On the Nature of Things

3 Comments

But, now again to weave the tale begun,
All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists
Of twain of things: of bodies and of void
In which they’re set, and where they’re moved around.
For common instinct of our race declares
That body of itself exists: unless
This primal faith, deep-founded, fail us not,
Naught will there be whereunto to appeal
On things occult when seeking aught to prove
By reasonings of mind. Again, without
That place and room, which we do call the inane,
Nowhere could bodies then be set, nor go
Hither or thither at all- as shown before.

—  From On the Nature of Things by Lucretius

A book on the  rediscovery of  the ancient Epicurean poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius has recently been published. “The Swerve: how the world became modern” by Stephen Greenblatt looks quite interesting. The fourfold above was inspired by the previous fourfold Spacetime. A very nice NPR review can be found below.

Further Reading:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/140464239/the-swerve-how-the-world-became-modern

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.1.i.html

To Do:

Change swerving to veering.

[*7.18]

<>

fourfolds, Philosophy, Psychology

Carl Jung’s Psychological Types

7 Comments

Carl Jung’s Psychological Types can be thought of as different mental states: Intuition, Sensation, Cognition, or Emotion, or as different events in the mind: Intuiting, Sensing, Thinking, and Feeling. I’m not sure why intuition and sensation is often paired with thinking and feeling, as it seems to mix tenses.

In Jung’s theory, intuition and sensation are considered perceiving or irrational functions, and thinking (cognition) and feeling (emotion) are considered judging or rational functions. In opposition to great quantities of scholarship, I believe that intuition is more rational than feeling, as well as intuition being a subjective choice as opposed to feeling being ordered choosing, or choice integrated over time. Similarly, thinking is sensing integrated. Thus perception is the substance of the form of judgment, and rationality and irrationality both bridge perception and judgment.

These distinctions are also the basis for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a psychological test and classification based on four dichotomies: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judgment-perception, each choice of which determines a person’s attitude, perception, judgment, and lifestyle. There are thus sixteen different personalities measured by this assessment.

This is sixteenfold less than the 256 different philosophical personalities represented by the Archic Matrix. It would be interesting if someone would create a Myers-Briggs type test for philosophers that would serve the same function for the Archic Matrix. Initial question: can the 16 personalities encoded by the MBTI, the 256 philosophical personalities encoded by the Archic Matrix, and the 64 Hexagrams of the I Ching be linked?

Further Reading:

http://thezodiac.com/soul/elements/cornerstones.htm

http://malankazlev.com/kheper/topics/Jung/typology.html

http://www.personalitypage.com/four-prefs.html

http://www.mindstructures.com/2010/08/intuition-sensing-thinking-and-feeling/

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

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

[*5.189, *7.2]

<>

 

fourfolds, Philosophy

William Blake’s Four Zoas

1 Comment

Now I a fourfold vision see
And a fourfold vision is given to me
Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
And three fold in soft Beulahs night
And twofold Always. May God us keep
From Single vision & Newtons sleep.

— By William Blake, in a letter to Thomas Butts

The dark Religions are departed & sweet Science reigns.

— From “The Four Zoas” by William Blake

William Blake’s Four Zoas arranged by the Four Elements. Most references associate Urizen to Reason, Luvah to Feeling, Tharmas to Sensation, and Urthona to Intuition. This means Air is Reason, Fire is Feeling, Earth is Intuition, and Water is Sensation. However, I follow others that associate Air to Reason, Fire to Intuition, Earth to Sensation, and Water to Feeling. Another puzzle to consider.

References:

William Blake / The Book of Urizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala,_or_The_Four_Zoas

http://ramhornd.blogspot.com/search/label/Four%20Zoas

http://ramhornd.blogspot.com/2010/03/fourfold-vision.html

http://www.mindfire.ca/Mind%20on%20Fire%20-%20Blake%20-%20The%20Fourfold%20Vision.htm

http://www.128path.org/pathtimes/article4.html

http://www.psyche.com/psyche/cube/cube_blake.html

http://www.astrostar.com/Four-Elements.htm

[*6.188, *6.190, *6.192, *8.38]

<>

fourfolds, Philosophy

Plato’s Divided Line

5 Comments

How to display Plato’s Divided Line? Instead of a continuous line going from low to high as it is usually shown, I’ve shown it as two continuous crossed lines, a fourfold or double dual. Eikasia (imagining) and Pistis (belief) together are Doxa, the phenomenal. Dianoia (understanding) and Noesis (knowledge) together are Episteme, the intelligible. Doxa should indeed be horizontal, corresponding to the phenomenal of Richard McKeon’s Aspects of Knowing, and the subjective or content of other double duals. I believe Eikasia should come before Pistis, as the substance and form of content in Hjelmslev’s Net. Considering the vertical axis, Episteme as Dianoia and Noesis should surely be there for Plato, corresponding to McKeon’s ontic. But how do Dianoia and Noesis relate?

By the measure of the Aspects of Knowing or the Archic Matrix, Dianoia could be considered the method/knowledge and Noesis the reality/knowable of Plato’s Divided Line. Thus Dianoia should be above Noesis, as method/knowledge is above reality/knowable. Yet by other measures, that of the Here and Now or Hjelmslev’s Net, Noesis should be above and Dianoia below. Noesis is the form to the substance of Dianoia. Dianoia can also be thought of as meroscopic, reducing all to number and quantity, and Noesis can be thought of as holoscopic, combining all thing into the hierarchy of forms that culminate in that ultimate form, “The Good”.

The difficulty may be because the lower position, here Noesis, serves both as the position of the real in some fourfolds, as well as the position of earth and matter in others. This is a bias that I would like to avoid, but a resolution will need to come later.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_Divided_Line

Images of Plato’s Divided Line:

https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=plato%27s+divided+line&sa=X

[*6.158-*6.165, *6.186]

<>