---- By J. L. Speranza
IN A PREVIOUS POST, This Blog, I proposed, following the advice of Ian C. Dengler, the idea of a 'developmental' or 'gradual' series, that would generate all levels of pirots. I commented on the Greek roots of some of the orders. Further detail can be gathered from Ian Cargan Dengler's post at
http://www.anomalist.com/features/taxonomy.html
1st Order 1.00
[apodeictics: rules and material physics]
2nd Order .99
[cataleptics: Bacteria, Archaea and their human equivalents]
3rd Order .97
[eikasics: Euryarchaeota, to lobster analytics]
4th Order .94
[proegmenics: middle order Eukarya]
5th Order .90
[prohairetics: choice systems to vertebrate transitions]
6th Order .85
[kathekontics: synthetic adaptations as in pets: birds and lizards]
7th Order .79
[phronesics: social model of the Cape Buffalo]
8th Order .72
[pithanotics: probable behavior in primates]
9th Order .64
[spoudaics: the Ideal State in humanism]
10th Order .55
[epideictics: assertions]
11th Order .45
[eristics: the Center Right]
12th Order .36
[sciolistics: flim-flam, nostrums and alternative medicine]
13th Order .28
[philosophastics: alternative physics of vampires and UFOs]
14th Order .21
[thaumaturgics: unrestricted alternative physics of miracles]
15th Order .15
[anagogics: antinomian trance states]
16th Order .10
[paralogics: drug overdose]
17th Order .06
[paleophrenics: syndromes to psychotics]
18th Order .03
[acataleptics: true legal insanity to terminal states of life]
19th Order .01
[anapodeictics: anarchy or "ciao universe and rules as well"]
--- The basis for this can be found elsewhere
http://www.i-depth.com/P/l/lh01668.frm.general.msg/51.html
ASPECTS RELATED TO STATIC CONCEPTIONS
Mode……………….Inorganic…………………………Organic
Construction…………Designed………………………..Evolved
Control……………….Central…………………………Distributed
Interconnection……….Hierarchical………………….Heterarchical
Representation…………Symbolic………………….Relational
Memory…………….Localised……………………Distributed
Information……………Complete………………………Partial
Structure……………..Top down………………………Bottom up
Search space………. ……………………………..Vast
Values………………….Simple……………………Multivariable
View……………….Isolated…………………………Epistatic
More later, I hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
uh..uh..axiom of normalcy vs non-standard self defining guess work? That model is from the upside down days of erewhon..it is a lot easier to run a bottom up set (Grice)? And there's a lot of difficulty with "order" which might only refer to first, or higher order qualities of references. However, any alternate ordered conception would also be a taxonomic array, even unto gaps and inexistence--in so far as there is some reification.
ReplyDeleteHence, the goal of philosophical taxonomy is not only to argue for a better or best fit, but simultaneously to accredit all and sundry alternatives.
Philosophy &/or it's representatives sometimes have a stated foundational departure point; more commonly it can be inferred albeit under doubt. Perhaps the most likely in historical practice is randomness, either from doubt or from some other conviction that ordering is invariably contravalued.
A taxonomic set needs be complete unto exhaustion of existents, and maintain the exception of non-existence by an empty marker. I had this in mind in the up-side down post you found from the Anomalist of the early 1990s: 1 would be the sum of existents, and 0 the antidemon. That worked ok for a few minutes, and I made that post. Then I thought about zero-order logics, ex-nihil higher order logics and realized that the model was upside down. That is:
0.0 Apodeictics (the existence argument from Bridge: before touching a card from dummy, even a singleton in the suit led—PLAN THE WHOLE HAND; necessary implication; inorganic chemistry]
.05 [aisthesics: Bacteria, Archaea to..?]
.10 [eikasics: instinct driven systems, Lophotrochozoans?]
.15 [proegmenics: choice as in Ecdysozoans/Insects? ]
.20 [prohairetics: choice as in middle order Deuterostomes/vertebrates?]
.25 [pithanotics: middle order animal typologies with social learning?]
.30 [hypolepsics: higher order mammels?]
.35 [phronimics: primates?]
.40 [spoudaics: humanism?]
.45 [ephetics: probable opinion]
.50 [aporematics: dubious opinion]
.55 [eristics: pedants, busybodies, agitprops and tyrants]
.60 [philosophastics: foolosophy, nostrums and alternative medicine]
.65 [sciolistics: alternative physics of magical realism]
.70 [thaumaturgics: unrestricted alternative physics of miracles]
.75 [anagogics: mysticism]
.80 [paralogics: abnormal psychology]
.85 [paleophrenics: insanity]
.90 [acataleptics: coma ]
.95 [apophasics: dissolution and null states.]
.99+ anapodeictics, the existent non-existence paradox
Perforce an ordered array can be scrambled to reflect any and all combinatorics, such that the little rocks, the little rocks of magic that speak, or the rocky graves of lost souls-all could have their individual taxonomica. In deed, this raises the problem of idea vs. philosophical principle.
I have collected quite few wonders in my years of phil-by-mail. Here's an alternative taxonomy from
PAAVO TORK. “A Matrice for Everything” Philosophemes [San Francisco l986] ”First things first, but not necessarily in that order” Dr. Who
Micromovistics
Autotrochaics (self-impulsion)
Next, move to the next thing
Eclipse, physics and death
Modes of speed and tempos
Flanelosophy (rigid fashionism)
Resistence (Zen)
Access and initiations
Continuity
Haleutics (ocean life)
Resistence (shaped points)
Lower and intermediate pis tics
Transformed bodies
Resonance
Autolachesianism (apoptosis)
Exhaled
Taxonomy of philosophy, therefore is not just a preferred entry--indeed this would be a properly unacceptable presupposition, but an accounting fair to the foul as well. If 0.99+ represents the nullification position, then
1.00 would be an exnihil argument, self-derived, of course, and so forth by 2.0, 3.0 etc.
Arrays are conventions, so conversion to any other system is automatic.
Execellent, I. C. Dengler. Perhaps we can expand on that motivation, as we may call it, behind the philosophical enterprise, and perhaps focusing on Grice as a philosopher. As you say, the Sceptic σκήψις will figure large. And anything against it will be a dog-ma. One wonders about the etymology of δόγμα, too. I know -μα is neuter singular, pl. δόγματα, but one wonders about the 'δόγ-'. And also the futility of δόγμα in plural. Grice never rallied to the defence, say, of Quine's alleged two dogmata: it seems one dogma is more than enough. With dogmata, _two_'s a crowd. Taxonomy has a lovely Grecian ring to it: the idea of the -νόμος being Platonic: the onoma-thesis, e.g., in Κρατύλος. Those who posit 'names' not "by nature" (φύσει) but "by convention" (θέσει, sometimes, νόμωι) And the τάξο- fascinated Aristotle. Indeed the Grecians and the Griceans loved φύλα and τάξο- so much that they called themselves 'botanists'. Theophrastos more than Aristotle (who was more onto animalia), but Austin and Grice would often refer to their work as that of a botanist (linguistic botany). Perhaps we can distinguish, as we should between 'botany' (or more generally, the postulate of a taxonomy or phylum-order-genus-species Porphyrian tree) and "botanising" (i.e. the application of a postulate). At moments, Grice seems uncapable to do the botany, just the botanising. At his better moments, though, when he gets the 'eschatological' insight, he does botany alright!
ReplyDelete“A good dictionary is the best metaphysical treatise.”
ReplyDeleteWilliam Fleming. Professor of Moral Philosophy in The University of Glasgow.
That would a sum-set dictionary, but what of the order? Grice once famously said to Austin, "I don't care what the dictionary says!" -- "And that's where you make your big mistake", Austin replied. But then Grice criticised Austin that he (Austin) could not distinguish between 'imply' and 'implicate'.
A taxonomy allows for all and sundry references, but they remain afloat as metaphors, until anchored by datum restriction, order in some relevant scheme, or both.
Is Grice uncapable (sic) of botany? Do sprouts of his wisdomings continue to grow?
Does he in the Afterlife of Pantheism, find anewal in some potted plant? More taxons, or ideonemes.
You have noted previously a citat-Grice:
--- Grice wrote: "Some time ago the idea occurred to me that there might be two distinguishable disciplines each of which might have some claim to the title of ... Metaphysics. The first ... I thought of as being categorial in character ... The second ... I thought of as being supracategorial in character; it would bring together categorially different subject-items beneath single classificatory characterisations, and perhaps would also specify principles which would have to be exemplified by items brought together by this kind of supracategorial assimilation. I hoped that the second discipline, which I was tempted to label 'Philosophical Eschatology,' might provide for the detection of affinities between categorially different realities, thus protecting the principles associated with particular categories from suspicion of arbitrariness." (Studies in the Way of Words, -- section 'Explorations in Semantics and Metaphysics', p. 304).
This might be inclusive, specifically botanic, or indistinctly boulesic. But what of the ordering?? There's the piece that the endless debate on phil blogs seems to miss. Similar concepts float about, references wander, bluster tsunamifies.
Thanks! Of course you cannot compare 'blogs' with "The Grice Club"! But anyhow, I loved your tracking of references. Indeed, when I was reading Chapman's unauthorised (well, he was dead) bio of Grice she quotes from a transcription she herself makes of a tape, where Grice is heard as saying, "Personally, I don't give a hoot what the dictionary says". Or perhaps he used the reported speech. This was APA, "And I would tell Austin, with obvious provocative intent, that personally I didn't give a hoot what the dictionary said." But he was right. Austin had said, "Do the dictionary": if you want to get the philosophical meaning of 'feel', get all the collocations. Grice got as far as "by-" and realised ALL made sense -- "feel Byzantine". Oddly, I feel guilty when I spread the word about implicature, but I will survive. I was corresponding for the fun of it with Julie Fields, of oed3.co.uk, and the thought never occurred to me about 'implicature'. We were discussing 'pirots' and other otiosities ('protreptic', 'erotetic', 'alethic', &c.). Then Horn was commenting to me on something and I volunteered, casually, "Well, there's no entry for 'implicature' in the OED, or for 'implicate'" -- meaning: "So what is Grice caring about?". The next thing (next day I told Horn, I think) he was publishing the thing in ADS-L. I thought this was a list for the discussion of advertisements, but no, it's the American Dialect Society, of all places. So there is this post entitled "A gap in the OED" or something, where Horn credits "J. L. Speranza" for having brought to his attention this gap! The next hour, the OED editor was collecting data for the entry which now stands in OED3. I feel sort of responsible. The OED staff really does not seem to care: they have Grice as a "linguist"! I told Horn about it, but I'm not going to fight for the right affiliation, will I? Incidentally, OED3 has 1967 as the first quote for 'implicature' -- but there is this LOONG quote dated 1964, which I have posted to this blog -- "Implicature 1964" in title -- to the effect that Grice was already using and working on the idea by then. As Sidonius was back in the day ('implicatura' is an entry in Lewis/Short, Latin Dictionary). Of course it's all 'productive' --ura, -ure, so, this are not really serious 'coinages'. The Austin thing, i.e. Grice to the effect that Austin 'frequently' ignored the field of implicature is interesting. It's Reply to Richards and we have Grice RIGHTLY criticising Witters for totally ignoring the notion, while Austin merely not having a word for it! (Or something).
ReplyDeleteoh. well. once you toddle off the epellation it's a crap shoot (lit.) i am considerated here: you probably don't mean that words are more important than meaning, or possibly that is the implicature definition you have here? What about
ReplyDelete=>Brentano Property: Diodorus Cronus (‘Old Fogey” an inherited appellation) held that words get their meaning not from nature nor even from convention, but instead from the intention with which they are uttered ESPECIALLY BY THE GODS as in minced or chopped oaths)
[Mi Fu, Huang T’ing-chen] Su tung-p’o (1036-1101) put forth the radical idea that the purpose of painting was not representation of
what we see when we wonder,
expression of what is in the mind and feelings of the creator.
See Locke: innate capacities not principles=> Tabula Rasa /McKinsey-Brown problem of external reference and the apriori]
Z.G. Szabo. Locke On Supposing A Substratum. LOCKE NEWS, 32, 11-42, 2000. Locke presents the idea of substratum formed through an elaborate mental process, which he calls ‘supposition’. It is the same process we use when we form the idea of infinity—another problematic idea for an empiricist. In the end Locke was more liberal than most empiricists in subscribing tot he existence of ideas far removed from experience [but Leibniz suggested that Locke went too far in this in saying that there is a ‘supposition’ where the mind does not think at all.]
appearance theory...a projection for conversational implicature so they don't overlap
Properties, Types and Meaning: Foundational issues - Google Books Result
by Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Hall Partee ... - 1988 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 258 pages
Definition. A Full Frame is an ordered triple F — (I, E, ... Definition. An Extensional Interpretation function e maps individual constants to elements of 0 ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=1556080670... -
Egsactly! Yes, it's a bother, but a delight! I don't think I'd care for the OED definition of implicature. Why, I love the editor and all, but this was really the old "New English Dictionary" NED, where "N" stood vis a vis "Old English" OE, and Middle English "ME" which all had their respective dictionaries, so that Murray felt a gap. The OED has to define things like "bottle", so what would THEY (Griceanly) 'know' about 'implicature' but report the use?! I love them! Usually when I consult the OED I go straight to the quotes, and skip the definitions. "The meaning of a word is its use" (Frege), so, I don't give a hoot for what the dictionary says. Only for what it implicates! The cites they give. Also, what is "the" in "the" dictionary. Surely Grice had more important things to do (play cricket for North Oxford Country Club) than care to get to the sombre Bodleain to browse the myopic lettering of the OED2 -- which is mainly Shakespeare anyway! As a Lit. Hum., he knew better! Liddell/Scott, Short and Lewis. As for the word versus the implicature or the utterer versus the utteratum, I think Locke was very right, as you quote him, and Chierchia, a genius! --- Alston (1964) lists Grice as a proponent of Locke's "ideational" theory of meaning. But as you say, what about "infinity" or "∞" (better) or Borges's "aleph"? Surely man can have no idea for it. Grice is cautious here: "what words mean is what utterers mean by them". Indeed, I'm starting to use scare quotes for 'mean' in "words 'mean'", "words 'say'", "words 'imply'". We should get or go the whole Gricean hog.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we can elaborate on 'taxon', that you use. So the idea is that the Universe (or Multiverse, as Pentcho prefers) is 'inescrutable' and fuzzy and that it's the Utterer who 'means' a given taxon. God cannot 'implicate'. What purpose would it have? He cannot 'mean', either. To who? The Grecians were pretty confused about those things. There is a book, "Theories of the sign in Classical Antiquity" -- redundant title: what antiquity is not classical? Surely! They indeed believed, as you report, that everything came from Zeus, or something. And do expand on other cultures too. Grice says that, for all he knew ('those who are in a position to tell me so -- he meant Staal, I think), the people in the East mean exactly the same thing as we do when they say 'philosophy'. I have expanded on this in "The Longitude and Latitude of Grice". He thinks philosophy has a continuity and that the West _meets_ the East when it comes to the love of wisdom (or rationality). Over-optimistic, nay?
Anarcho-verbalism (the really private language argument)? That would be when you hoot at the dictionary of your own PNA/RNA/DNA. In the derivation of species that would be a stage in the dismemberment process of apoptosis.
ReplyDeleteThe use factor in words would include dictionaries especially by one's own conceptual process of reification. A dictionary would be another "God's Eye View." In the contrary you have another Zeno paradox: here I've a word...uh opps, no that didn't wholly make it ...only half way..uh..opps must be an Alzheimer moment..uh..no not enough memory in the system for that...
What about taxons, taxonomies to concepts? Tropes/taxons/CLICHES/ARCHETYPES RULES=> The archetypal forms, the ideal patterns of reality, exist in God alone. The physical nature of things, the phenomenal world, is modeled after those archetypes. –Vico. Garin History of Italian Philosophy I: 691
G.F. Stout's category of abstract particulars (what Husserl calls "moments')
Taxons are just words in some ordered relationship, perhaps even inclusive of all possible orderings.
It is the ordering that makes a taxonomy useful to philosophy. The hope is to overcome random dialectics.