/lit/ - Literature

>>22483883
Reality itself has this tripartite structure. From Augustine's perspective, this is obvious. "God is within everything, but contained in nothing."

There are some neat parallels here with Terrance Deacon's work in biosemiotics and complexity studies and disaptive systems in general, along with Hegel, who is in many ways a progenitor of complexity studies and information theory. It's no accident that electrical engineering/philosophy classic the Laws of Form, a classic in mathematical logic, begins similarly to the Greater Logic.

Substance and properties then are emergent from stabilities within process. Note that process does not presuppose time, only information, variance across some dimension. This is a basic prerequisite of any metaphysics. A universe of just one unchanging thing can be defined in comparison to nothing. It is contentless, sheer immediacy, it falls victim to Hegel's collapse into nothing.

You also see this in explorations of category theory, and the ways in which one objects existence implies another.

>>22094879
Claiming the world is made up of facts is a metaphysical claim. So much of analytical philosophy re: the anti-metaphysical movement is just a giant case of begging the question.

Ordinary language theory is fucking dumb and with the development of linguistics, information theory, and the neuroscience of language, it's become clear that the proponents had just invented a bunch of dogma that suited their presuppositions. Unsuprisingly, when Geller BTFO it Ryle and Russell tried to have it censored, angry that anyone could question them. A surefire sign of dogma.

I think this problem has deep roots in the Anglo tradition. Look at Hume. If causation is a process akin to computation, a conception that is quite popular in physics, then seeing a rock break a window is seeing causation. The world progresses through states based on logical entailment, the rules of which are essential to the universe. There is no great mystery here, it's the same as watching a mechanical calculator. Hume begs the question when saying watching to rock hit the window isn't seeing the rock cause the window the break.

From this tradition we then get Russell trying to deny causation even exists, even as constant conjunction, because it's problematic for how he wants his tidy system to work.

Wittgenstein actually has a pretty good dig at Hume on just this point come to think of it.

Positivism is fine because it gave us Quine, but we can still fault it for the huge shadow it cast on physics, first with Copenhagen orthodoxy being enforced from on high, and continuing with the knee jerk reaction to claim any innovation in quantum foundations is "metaphysics," and thus "meaningless."

Metaphysics is tricky because it's a knotty set of issues. The idea that "I figured out 3,000 years of debate, it's actually all just confusion due to people not using words the way they should," is the height of asinine.

Unfortunately, I think Russell was a very smart boy who always found everything easy. He got to Hegel and got badly filtered and kicked off an entire retarded crusade against metaphysics because he didn't want to admit that it would take hard work to understand Hegel.

Now today, the Principia is a historical curiosity and people are still finding more and more insights in the Logic. We could get off fossil fuels if we could harness the power of Russell spinning in his grave.

>>21881264
The objective logic of the dialectical isn't subject to incompleteness or undefinability. Axioms are for suckers.

I wonder what Russell would think of the Science of Logic being rediscovered as a work of genius by analytics while the Principia is only a historical curiosity now.

>>21462755
>>21463679
*The flower does not refute the bus. The acorn does not refute the tree. The truth is acorn to tree, to the branch that begets more acorns, a circle of circles, the universal is the thing, the tree that grows from the nutrition of the soil of particulars in a process of circular generation, blah, blah, blah.

I couldn't get all of it but the dudes does seem like the godfather of cybernetics/complexity studies in a way. And A isn't A because A is the process by which A is. Sort of a precursor to process philosophy/theology.

I know Hegel was the main influence for Russel and analytic philosophy in that he triggered them all so hard they had to totally change philosophy to banish Hegel's ghost, but he seems to have really influenced Whitehead's later split off too. Now ironically analytic logicalists are into his shit because the objective logic isn't subject to incompleteness and undefinability the way axiomatic systems are.

I can't make heads or tails of category theory so I don't know if it's even coherent, it's just funny to see it come full circle. I dont think anyone since Aristotle has so dominated people's thoughts behind the scenes for so long. Even politics, modern liberalism, modern nationalism, communism, and fascism, is just 150+ years of Hegel's children fighting each other.

Got filtered by Hegel so hard he never recovered.

/sci/ has claimed Hegel so /lit/ can have Schopenhauer

I think this is a good reflection of where the two have their influence today.

/pol/ is obviously just another of Hegel's political golems.

>>20703429
And if you are someone who needs a bedrock of certainty, the mathematics of the dialectical are there for you, still waiting to be developed entirely.

The mathematics of Yin and Yang
In (Lawvere 2000) a particularly simple example of the adjoint cylinder was suggested that we use here as a warm up. Note that the categories involved are not toposes and even lack a terminal object!

Let N be the natural numbers {0,1,…} viewed as a category via their usual ordering. Let L,R:NN be the two parallel functors ‘even’ and ‘odd’ defined by L(n)≔2n and R(n)≔2n+1.

Both are full and faithful, which means that they correspond to two subcategory inclusions and, accordingly, to two subcategories Neven and Nodd. We are now in situation where we have two subcategories that ‘oppose’ each other in that Neven≠Nodd but are nevertheless ‘identical’ in that there is a bijection Neven≃Nodd. Furthermore, both are ‘united’ as different parts in the encompassing N whose overall structure they represent in that Neven≃N≃Nodd - that is somewhat unusual for what is to follow below where the opposing parts are seldom equivalent to the whole but they will always be a pair consisting of a reflective and a coreflective subcategory.

Now it was Lawvere’s observation that a third functor NN which with a clin d’oeil to C. S. Peirce's concept of thirdness we call T , can encapsulate this bunch of relations in one sweep when it forms an adjoint triple L⊣T⊣R with L and R:

The triple expresses the unity by the idempotency of (R∘T)2=R∘T and (L∘T)2=L∘T typical for (co)reflective subcategories,

it expresses the opposition between L and R by an entailed adjunction L∘T⊣R∘T,

it expresses the identity L between R by the entailed equivalence T∘L≃T∘R .

In other words, T unites, opposes and identifies L and R at the same time!

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Aufhebung#the_mathematics_of_yin_and_yang

>>20689908

>>20688827

>>20685474
This. I get this image is supposed to be making fun of me but it sums up a very real problem with math getting ruined by schizo mathematicians doing abstract autism games instead of applying math for actual things, like in engineering.

I had a brilliant classmate I kept in touch with, top of the class, who was great to bounce ideas off of. But he flew to close to the sun, wanting to get to some imagined super truth or something and did a PhD in math of all things when he could have got a fine job doing real stuff.

Still, important stuff gets done by academic mathematicians, right? But no, he got into fucking Hegel and this sort of shit. He was talking to me about a way to explain the Big Bang and the emergence of the laws of physics, symmetry breaking, in terms of a dialectical and progression of contradictions.

Interesting idea, sure. But to spend your life on? The Big Bang is a real thing made of real particles. You can't justify it or explain it with dialectical whatever. Hegel is a virus that gives smart people schizophrenia.

>>20645314
Hegel got us to semiotics and was a huge influence on Pierce. With the information theoretic turn in biology those ideas have been pretty crucial to framing what life is, how it began, and how we could make synthetic life.

Hegel's idea of the public self I've seen referenced in neuroscience/origins of consciousness.

He shows up as a direct inspiration in information science too.

I've seen his ideas as a primary reference point in biology and mathematics too.

Obviously he had a huge influence in theology and politics, grandfather of Marxism, Fascism, and the liberal state lol. He was the main reference point for Fukuyama's End of History as well.

>>20603729
They're the product of the dialectical.

>>20591101