[ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [issues] Re: Tetronic Notation; "...a significant generalization of Frege."
I'm personally always fascinated with various forms of diagrammatic
reasoning. That topic was among the topics thought important by the late
Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon. This approach looks pretty simple.
Cheers
Jack
>From: Thommandel@aol.com
>To: issues@isss.org
>
>Hi, as most of you know, I have been trying to promote a "General System
>Principle"
>in lieu of a "General System Theory" along the lines of the Chinese
>Yin/Yang. I am happy to announce some progress, albeit using the universal
>principle diagrams (see www.isss.org/primer/tetron/tetron/tetrongifs.htm)
>I am having difficulty trying to find the right words to express the
>significance of this concept. While the notational form is mine, the
>principle it works with has been around for some time now. I want to say
>that this principle can lead to a new knowledge base that transcends all
>knowledge and thus could usher in a new era as significant as when science
>first appeared on the scene.
>
>tom
>
>In a message dated 05/18/02 3:39:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
>kauffman@uic.edu writes:
>>
>> >
>> > Subj: Re: Tetronic Notation
>> > Date: 05/17/02 6:25:08 PM Central Daylight Time
>> > From: kauffman@uic.edu (Louis H Kauffman)
>> > To: Thommandel@aol.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Tom Mandel,
>> > Thank you!
>> > It is very much related to Frege's notation.
>> > Frege's notation for implication is really close to what you write and it
>> > was intended to map the relationship of premise and conclusion. I would
>> > say you have a significant generalization of Frege.
>> > Best,
>> > Lou K.
>> > On Fri, 17 May 2002 Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > http://www.isss.org/primer/tetron/tetron/tetrongifs.htm
>> > >
>> > > Dear Dr. Kauffman;
>> > >
>> > > I have invented a new notational form I call tetronic notation which
>> has
>> > been
>> > > described by others as consistant with Spencer Brown, Peirce, and
>> Rosen's
>> > > modeling relation. In addition I have found it to be consistant with a
>> > great
>> > > deal of other ontological forms. Please take a look at it, I have it
>> at the
>> > > above URL.
>> > >
>> > > Tom Mandel, Webmaster isss.org
>> > > 3008 W 109th St
>> > > Chicago Il
>> > > 773 445 6882
>> > >
>> > > FYI
>> > > Ref:
>> > > Subj: Re: [issues] Re: Spencer Brown's Laws of Form.
>> > > Date: 05/13/02 3:46:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>> > > From: john.collier@kla.univie.ac.at (John Collier)
>> > > To: Thommandel@aol.com
>> > >
>> > > At 10:07 PM 13/05/02, you wrote:
>> > > >It should be easy to come up with any number of notations, once one
>> knows
>> > > >what should be notated. It is most interesting that both Spencer and
>> > > >Peirce have notations that are consistent with that of the general
>> form.
>> > > >But I would say that both Spencer and Peirce are not mainstream
>> thinkers
>> > > >and writers. I would say that both are relatively unknown by the
>> > > >scientific community. I think that the domain we are talking about
>> is the
>> > > >domain of the simplest. I think that the domain of the simlest is
>> unique
>> > > >in the sense that is can be made into a principle, the first
>> principle,
>> > > >and it is this principle which can be worked with further.
>> > > )John)
>> > > Yes. I do agree with that. I had intended to think about your
>> diagrams in
>> > > more detail. They look interesting. I have been very busy recently with
>> > > travel and talks. I don't recall if I referred you to Louis Kauffman's
>> > > article on Peirce and Spencer Brown. It is one of the best things I
>> have
>> > > read. You can find a copy at
>> > > http://www.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/CHK.pdf
>> > >
>> > > John
>> > >
> (01)