Hi, my name is Ben. I've been following some of these threads at Bill Overcamp's suggestion. It looks like no html tags are allowed. (Test and test).

"Place" is a translation of Aristotle's _pou_ which means "where," i.e., location.

"Position","attitude", and "posture" are sometimes used to translate Aristotle's _keisthai_ which means "to lie" (as in "to lie on the floor", and his examples are "to lie" and "to sit."

See _Categories_ part 4 http://www.classicallibrary.org/aristotle/categories/1.htm

In Greek (djvu file) http://meta.montclair.edu/ancient/greek/aristotle_greek/opera1/INDEX.djvu

(Note: the Greek alphabet is much of what I know of Greek; I rely on online dictionaries.)

Aristotle's idea of position or attitude is often taken as referring to the relative positions of a thing's parts. Understood (e.g., in sculpture) as including positions or postures of standing, running, etc., it suggests a readiness or aptness to perform some action or behavior.

- The word "attitude" comes from Latin _aptitudo_ (also note that the Spanish word is _actitud_).

- The word "disposition" likewise can mean a kind of attitude of one's character and can mean relative locations or "Arrangement, positioning, or distribution" as in "a "cheerful disposition of colors and textures" (from sense 3 in the _American Heritage_ dictionary definition via Yahoo http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/disposition and "disposition of troops" (sense 1 at _Webster's New World College Dictionary_, 4th Ed.) http://www.yourdictionary.com/disposition.

- So this conception runs toward both aspects of conceptions of some sort of likelihood or probability - a _distribution_ of things or characters (as in the frequentist conception of objective ratios of cases), and the modal or modal-like conception of a _propensity_.

"State" and "condition" are sometimes used to translate Aristotle's word _echein_ ("to have" and, sometimes, "to be") when he means it as a category. His examples are "shod" (shoe'd, wearing shoes) and "armed". So, where position or attitude involves a kind of readiness of somebody or something to do something, state or condition involves a state resulting from undergoing something.

So attitude/position and state/condition seem related analogously as action and affection/undergoing. (Bill and I noticed the analogy independently of each other some time ago. I'm not sure he goes along with me on quite all that I say about position/attitude!).

A better word for position might be posture... thus the examples: lying, sitting.

Hi, my name is Ben. I've been following some of these threads at Bill Overcamp's suggestion. It looks like no html tags are allowed. (Test and test).

"Place" is a translation of Aristotle's _pou_ which means "where," i.e., location.

"Position","attitude", and "posture" are sometimes used to translate Aristotle's _keisthai_ which means "to lie" (as in "to lie on the floor", and his examples are "to lie" and "to sit."

See _Categories_ part 4 http://www.classicallibrary.org/aristotle/categories/1.htm

In Greek (djvu file) http://meta.montclair.edu/ancient/greek/aristotle_greek/opera1/INDEX.djvu

(Note: the Greek alphabet is much of what I know of Greek; I rely on online dictionaries.)

Aristotle's idea of position or attitude is often taken as referring to the relative positions of a thing's parts. Understood (e.g., in sculpture) as including positions or postures of standing, running, etc., it suggests a readiness or aptness to perform some action or behavior.

- The word "attitude" comes from Latin _aptitudo_ (also note that the Spanish word is _actitud_).

- The word "disposition" likewise can mean a kind of attitude of one's character and can mean relative locations or "Arrangement, positioning, or distribution" as in "a "cheerful disposition of colors and textures" (from sense 3 in the _American Heritage_ dictionary definition via Yahoo http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/disposition and "disposition of troops" (sense 1 at _Webster's New World College Dictionary_, 4th Ed.) http://www.yourdictionary.com/disposition.

- So this conception runs toward both aspects of conceptions of some sort of likelihood or probability - a _distribution_ of things or characters (as in the frequentist conception of objective ratios of cases), and the modal or modal-like conception of a _propensity_.

"State" and "condition" are sometimes used to translate Aristotle's word _echein_ ("to have" and, sometimes, "to be") when he means it as a category. His examples are "shod" (shoe'd, wearing shoes) and "armed". So, where position or attitude involves a kind of readiness of somebody or something to do something, state or condition involves a state resulting from undergoing something.

So attitude/position and state/condition seem related analogously as action and affection/undergoing. (Bill and I noticed the analogy independently of each other some time ago. I'm not sure he goes along with me on quite all that I say about position/attitude!).

BU: "Hi, my name is Ben. I've been following some of these threads at Bill Overcamp's suggestion."

Welcome Ben!! I have been awaiting your appearance for some time. I hope you post much more as time goes on...

Hi, Bill, thanks. Happy Thanksgiving to you & all (or at least all who'd like one!).

BU: "Note: the Greek alphabet is much of what I know of Greek; I rely on online dictionaries."

BU: "Bill and I noticed the analogy independently of each other some time ago. I'm not sure he goes along with me on quite all that I say about position/attitude!"

It seems to be true that we independently came to similar positions regarding position, state, action and affection.

So far as the Greek goes, I know nothing. You clearly have me seriously outclassed. I'm sure that would come as a surprise to no one.

I would also point out that The Tetrast on Wikipedia has some interesting views on the subject...

BU: "Hi, Bill, thanks. Happy Thanksgiving to you & all (or at least all who'd like one!)."

They need to be happy whether they like it or not. Life is fantastic, a miracle in progress!!

BU: "It looks like no html tags are allowed. (Test and test)."

You got it... No HTML, no BBC, no nothing.

CD: "From Maths, physics, cognitive and linguistics viewpoints, Time, place, then subject and object, people(one of substance) or substance; then verb, state, action and affection; quality, quantity, relation and position should be the subordinate class.

In my humble opinion, one should think of Aristotle first and foremost as a biologist. Yes, he wrote some philosophy. But one can not understand his philosophy without grasping the biological underpinning for his thought.

The purpose of ***The Categories*** was to provide a stable basis for definition by genus and species... genus and species... genus and species... Engrave those words on your mind... genus and species. Where do we commonly come upon those words, but in biology?

The point is not how we use a word... subject, object, noun, verb, etc... the point is how one defines a words by genus and species. Consider a simple example... murder is frequently used as a noun. But it is not a substance or anything like a substance. It is an action. When we define the word we may note the usage. But the essential point of its definition is that it falls into the genus of action and how it differs from other acts.

The 'categories' are conceived of as being the ***summa genera prædicatorum,*** the supreme genera of predicates. Thus one can in theory define a term by naming the category it belongs to and how it differs from other members of that genus.

Why should we care about the ***summa genera prædicatorum?*** It is important that there are finitely many genera. Otherwise, we could not know them. If finite, we can list them. That is what Aristotle has done. He has given us a list of all the genera which he thought essential for defining words according to their scientific usage.

Exactly. ***The Cateroties*** was conceived by Aristotle as the basis for his logic. It was not about metaphysics --- though metaphysics uses it --- as do all the sciences.

If anything, it was closer to ***The Physics*** than ***The Metaphysics.***

As I recall, Aristotle held that there are three degrees of abstraction. The first is physics. In physics we abstract from this particular matter. The second is mathematics. I mathematics we abstract from matter, itself. The highest is metaphysics. In metaphysics we abstract from both matter and form. At that level we are concerned with being per se.

But, perhaps my memory on this point is not perfect. In any event, metaphysics deals with abstract being.

The word ***metaphysics*** means "after physics." That is sometimes taken to mean beyond physics. On the other hand, I have heard it explained simply to mean that Aristotle may have written ***The Metaphysics*** after he wrote ***The Physics.*** No one really knows, I suppose, the original intent behind the name.

Yes, he wrote on many different subjects.

well, maybe he wasn't the first very famous scientist in human beings, but he had the good sense to write everything down. maybe they were others before him who forgot to write anything down, so that they are forever out of the scientific pantheon :(

apparently two thirds of his works have disappeared- there is talk from antiquity that his dialogues where much better than plato's ones.

Just this weekend I realized the real significance of the name, 'categories' (Κατηγορίαι)... As I wrote before it refers to a legal proceeding.

What about legal proceedings is relevant to categories --- and in particular to the ten categories which Aristotle wrote about?

Well, I realized that one of the major concerns of Aristotle's ***Rhetoric*** was in teaching potential lawyers how to argue a case. So most likely, the ***Categories*** was the product of his reflection on the sort of arguments that come up in legal cases... a list of ten very general questions which a lawyer might want to address in arguing a case.

Just recently I learned that the Vaisheshika had independently developed a list of six 'categories:' Substance, Quality, Action, Genus, Individuality and Inherence. Later commentators added a seventh, Privation.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33239/33239-h/33239-h.htm#ar30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#The_Categories_or_Pad.C4.81rtha

According to Vaisesika, everything that exists is divided into seven categories: substance, quality, movement, generality, particularity, inherence, and non-existence. The first three exist in reality. The second three are logical categories, products of mental activity.

Categories are the terms expressing in concepts universal modes in man's relation to the world and reflecting the most general and essential properties and laws of nature, society and thought.

In my opinion, categories were formed in the process of the historical development of cognition and social practice. They are based on the methods of man's concrete activity, and means of intercourse, and not on the activity of the spirit.

Given the dates, I suppose it is just barely possible that Kaṇāda had gotten that from Aristotle. We do know, of course, that there was commerce between India and Israel. And Greece is not all that far off. So perhaps someone had gotten a copy of the ***Catagories*** to India.

I suppose the Vaisheshika could have gotten the idea of the elements and the atom from Greece, as well.

In any event, the similarities between the two systems is clear.

R.K. "In my opinion categories were formed in the process of the historical development of cognition and social practice, they are based on the methods of mans concrete activity and means of intercourse and not on the activity of the spirit"

Bill "I suppose the Valsheshita could have gotten the idea of the elements and the atom from Greece as well".

Bravo!

It is my contention that many philosophical traditions have been "Poisoned" by Socrates and Plato's work, possibly while the library at Alexandria was in operation.

I say poisoned because of course it was Socrates who claimed that communication of something went outside the channels of the senses, and Plato who gave the concept the definition to make it possible to talk about Ideals as if they were separate from thought, and cultural norms. It was not that these concepts did not exist in other cultures/religions, but that they were given greater form, and credence, and later, reinforcement because they came from such varigated traditions.

One of the American Philosophers started talking about Memes, Infectious ideas, and this particular Socratic infection has, I believe created many social problems and been the source of great artistic and scientific Creations, which must be looked on as slightly contaminated and therefore, possibly slightly skewed from reality.

GS: "Bravo!"

My pleasure!!

GS: "It is my contention that many philosophical traditions have been "Poisoned" by Socrates and Plato's work, possibly while the library at Alexandria was in operation."

You have said such nonsense before, but been unable to give any real meaning to the claim.

GS: "of course it was Socrates who claimed that communication of something went outside the channels of the senses..."

Which dialogue would you base that on? Socrates, of course, loved to talk. One has to wonder why he bothered talking if speech and hearing do not communicate meaning.

GS: "and Plato who gave the concept the definition to make it possible to talk about Ideals as if they were separate from thought, and cultural norms."

Of course, ideas are separate from thought. Thus it is possible to communicate through speech and writing, neither of which think. And of course, the laws of motion are embodied in whatever moves. Yet not all moving things think.

GS: "One of the American Philosophers started talking about Memes, Infectious ideas, and this particular Socratic infection has, I believe created many social problems and been the source of great artistic and scientific Creations, which must be looked on as slightly contaminated and therefore, possibly slightly skewed from reality."

That's nice. Does this American Philosopher have a name?

Plato widely employed the teachings of Socrates, for example 'idea'. Its true. Plato defended the idealist world outlook. Plato's teachings played a prominent role in the further evolution of idealist philosophy.

Socrates is good at talking except with his wife, Xanthippe. Socrates, who doesn't like to communicate with his wife Xanthippe, asked the people to follow the method "know thyself" instead of knowing the world as he thought it was unknowable. Knowledge according to him is an idea. To Plato, the sensible world, which is the product of "ideas" and "matter", occupies an intermediate position. To him, 'Ideas' are eternal.

Socrates talked about definitions. According to Socrates , DEFINITION of concept must be preceded by conversations. Hence he like to involve as many conversations as possible but not at home.

Plato was a representative of Athenian aristocracy, the basis of which was slave labour.

Yes, Bill, undoubtedly, the philosopher has a name, but sorry, sadly I have been sick, with some kind of flu, and my memory for names was never very good, it has quite slipped my mind, or alternatively you can also claim that because I was never formally trained in philosophy, that my claims are groundless as you have implied at other times.

GS: "undoubtedly, the philosopher has a name, but sorry, sadly I have been sick, with some kind of flu, and my memory for names was never very good, it has quite slipped my mind."

Not a problem. It will come to mind and I'm sure you will let us know when it does.

GS: "or alternatively you can also claim that because I was never formally trained in philosophy, that my claims are groundless as you have implied at other times."

Not a problem. Please remember that I am a mathematician/computer programmer, not a philosopher.

I really would like to know what how Socrates and Plato might have "poisoned" the Vaisheshika. The ***Categories*** was written by Aristotle, not Socrates or Plato. The Four elements goes back to Empedocles, not Socrates or Plato. The idea of the atom goes back to Leucippus, not Socrates or Plato.

Which of these ideas is poison?

What I suggested was that there might have been some influence. I can not, however, claim it as if it were a fact. You have taken what I said could have happened and falsely attributed it to Socrates and Plato, claiming that they "poisoned" Indian philosophy.

But that is nonsense. Indian philosophy is tied to Hindu religion. It has many ideas far more "poisonous" than the three I mentioned.

Not that I wish to insult India... But any ideas they may have gotten from Greece would have probably had the opposite effect.

The Greeks played the leading role in the foundation of science and philosophy, and in the detachment of these from religion, but they are not alone in having made this progress. It is no more than just to mention the great intellectual labor performed by the people of the East, even though this labor was not as consequential as that of the ancient Greeks.

In ancient India there was an independent development of the theory of thought or logic. This theory was called Nyaya, that is, the theory of concepts, etc. This logic developed in ancient India as it did in ancient Greece: from discussions of various conflicting philosophical systems as a defensive technique in these discussions and as an aid to thought. This was one of the great achievements of ancient India.

There is no evidence that Indian philosophical thought is because of Greek philosophers. It is the fact that the Indian philosophical thought established independently.

Could you please show the proof that Socrates and Plato influenced Indian ancient philosophy?

RK: "In ancient India there was an independent development of the theory of thought or logic. This theory was called Nyaya, that is, the theory of concepts, etc."

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

RK: "There is no evidence that Indian philosophical thought is because of Greek philosophers. It is the fact that the Indian philosophical thought established independently. Could you please show the proof that Socrates and Plato influenced Indian ancient philosophy?"

I made no such claim. I said that given the dates, and given the fact that we know that there was trade between India and Israel, it is possible that Aristotle had influenced Kaṇāda. I didn't say it had happened, only that it is possible.

And so far as Socrates or Plato goes, you need to ask Graeme.

Indian Philosophy Nyaya logic? My questions.

BO: "Indian philosophy is tied to Hindu religion. It has many ideas far more "poisonous" than the three I mentioned"?

My philosophy professor Fang Dungmei stated that the best philosophy is in India, and mysticism in Tibet. Is it rather so? And has Indian Philosophy nurtured mainly by Nyaya logic? Western by Aristotelian logic?

http://groups.google.com/group/RealityNature

http://groups.google.com/group/universes

SgT: "My philosophy professor Fang Dungmei stated that the best philosophy is in India, and mysticism in Tibet. Is it rather so? And has Indian Philosophy nurtured mainly by Nyaya logic? Western by Aristotelian logic?"

Not knowing your professor, I can not speculate on what he meant.

#H1-194. Ref the thread "The Categories" which i just now read (2 pages, 30 postings). It is nice to know the word "Categories" has been/can be applied to other/~s' such derivations also.

2. Vaisheshika categories : Matter (including space, time and mind, and even identity),

Quality (though the listed/conceived qualities seem listed/conceived without requiring better symmetry),

Activity (action; may be we won't be wrong to define "Transcience"/Action/the straboscopy itself as a dimension equal to though different from the concrete sculpture?),

Generality and Particularity (i think these make sense only as Together),

Relationships.

I need to reduce the above to arrive at better polychotomy: (1) matter (including mind) (permanaent), (2) quality (including generality, particularity, and relationships (non-tense), and (3) activity or "transcience".

3. There may be numerous such classifications around the world (Ref Haris Shekeris , Dec 1, 2009 9:10 pm).

4. But should i attempt a reduction of Aristotle's too? (both Bill Overcamp and Ravindrababu K have implied that the implication of the original conceivers of Aristotle and Kanada categories may be respectively from/for "legal case arguments" and "concrete activity", however i am unable resist "activity of the mind",and proceed to reduce what could had been concreteness intentions):

According to Aristotle, there are ten categories of expressions. The word 'expression' is important. He was categorizing types of speech, not types of being. Sometimes we confuse the two. It is worth noting that the Vaisheshika, called the 'categories,' 'Padārtha,' meaning the meaning of words.

Aristotle was categorizing them according to their meanings, not their grammatical use. For example, 'knowledge' is a noun. But Aristotle classifies it as a relation... for it relates the knower to the thing known.

The meaning of a word may change in different grammatical contexts. Thus an expression can fall into two or even more categories, depending on the meaning it has in different contexts.

One of the problems in Aristotle's theory is that it is partly ***a priori*** and ***a posteriori.*** Substance, quality and relation are clearly ***a priori.*** Quantity, space, time, action, passion, state and position, on the orther hand, are clearly ***a posteriori.***

Immanuel Kant, attempting to clarify some difficulties raised by Isaac Newton's laws of motion, decided to divide the world into 'noumenon' and 'phenomenon.' He decided that the 'categories' should refer to the former. Specifically, he was categorizing judgments, not expressions. Thus he came up with a list of ***a priori*** categories: Quantity (Universal, Particular, Singular), Quality (Affirmative, Negative, Infinite), Relation (Categorical, Hypothetical, Disjunctive), Modality (Problematical, Assertoric, Apodictic).

I totally reject Kant. He truly 'poisoned' philosophy.

I equally reject Aristotle's use of 'a priori' categories, substance, quality and relation. I accept those terms, but not their status as categories.

Instead of substance, I use material form. I also accept the possibility that some expressions of substance may be transcendental, such as 'god.'

As for qualities, they are simply better categorized in other ways, such as affection.

Aristotle's use of relation is a special case. A relation has three elements, (1) a subject, (2) its ground and (3) its correlate. Thus a (1) father is related by (2) fatherhood to his (3) son.

Aristotle generally used the word 'relation' to mean the subject of a relation. Thus in the sentence, "Sophroniscus was the father of Socrates," both 'Sophroniscus' and 'Socrates' are substances, while 'father' is the relation.

I would, however, classify the word 'father' as a substance since it refers to a substance, Sophroniscus. It also happens to be a relation, but that does not change the fact that it refers to a substance and should be classified as one.

Occasionally Aristotle referred to the ground of a relation, as in the case of knowledge. I recognize the fact that knowledge is a relative term, but classify it as an action... for the knower knows the thing known.

And there are mathematical relations, such as double and half. I classify them with quantity.

I suppose,there may be other, difficult, cases.

Aristotle did not distinguish between the universal and particular. There is universality and particularity in each of the categories. Thus 'man' is substance, but so is 'men.' Red is an effective quality, but color is also an effective quality. 'Father' is a relation, but so is 'fathers.'

NS: "I would drop quantity and affection (that are in Bill's list); I considered Bill's insistence esp on quantity, then i need to "understand" quantity as a "dimension" ; i don't need to reduce and differentiate oneness from n-ness [of the same "form"], however Bill's or anybody else's similar thoughts let may give rise to yet another variety."

Suppose for a moment that the categories are categories of expressions --- as Aristotle said. Consider the expression 'five men.' It can be divided into the expressions 'five' and 'men.' The word 'men' is what Aristotle called a 'substance' or what I would call a 'material form.' But what is 'five?' Does five add anything at all to 'men?' Or does 'five men' mean exactly the same thing as 'men?'

Quantity can be applied to other categories, as well. Thus we can speak of five meters, of five pounds, of five hours, of five sayings. Does 'five' add anything at all to 'meters,' 'pounds,' 'hours,' or 'sayings?' If so, what does it add? If not, then why do we use the word at all?

NS: "I would drop quantity and affection (that are in Bill's list); I considered Bill's insistence esp on quantity, then i need to "understand" quantity as a "dimension" ; i don't need to reduce and differentiate oneness from n-ness [of the same "form"], however Bill's or anybody else's similar thoughts let may give rise to yet another variety."

I don't think you have dropped affection. You simply call it 'quality.' I drop quality because there are better ways of categorizing qualities. Thus there are spacial qualities, affective qualities, temporal qualities, action-qualities, substantial, material qualities and transcendental qualities.

NS: "I would drop quantity and affection (that are in Bill's list); I considered Bill's insistence esp on quantity, then i need to "understand" quantity as a "dimension" ; i don't need to reduce and differentiate oneness from n-ness [of the same "form"], however Bill's or anybody else's similar thoughts let may give rise to yet another variety."

Objecting to quantity because it is dimensional, is like objecting to substance, because men are animals.

Height, width, and depth are dimensions. They are also quantities in the sense that they are described by mathematics.

You reject quantity as a category. Do quantitative expressions add something to a proposition? If so, how are we to categorize them, if not as quantities? It is one thing to reject something, another to propose an alternative.

RK: "Plato was a representative of Athenian aristocracy, the basis of which was slave labour. "

What of it?

Slavery must be understood in context. In the ancient world, a slave was better off than a free man who had no land and no means of support. Such a man might happily have sold himself into slavery in order to live. A wise master treated his slaves with as much kindness as might fit the occasion.

Slavery came about for two reasons: war and crime. The victors in wars frequently killed the men and took the women and children as slaves. The slaves were better off than they would have been had the victor simply killed them. In a similar way, slavery might be imposed as a punishment for crime.

In the modern world we don't have much slavery, but we have jails, which serve much the same purpose. It is not unheard of for a man to commit a crime in order to be locked up where he will be able to get food, clothing, etc.

Even in the 'Workers Paradise' (AKA the USSR) there were jails and the slavery they imply. From what I understand, the commies were not particularly kind to their slaves.

And yes, even today slavery still exists.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html

How is slavery represented in the Platonic Dialogues?

As I seem to recall, it was said to be necessary for those who do not know how to live virtuous lives... in other words, as a punishment for crime.

I think the main requirement for ending slavery is education. The educated man will most likely be a free man. Universal education is a goal all me ought to support.

#H1-198. BO 0123110030 to 0254. Thanks for the affection/quality clarification. Regarding quality, my preference for that is because, alas, i fancy "a priori" [ever since coming to be fascinated of the term on reading in 1984 Russel and his quotations of Keynes, i think, when in commonsense].

@*. 2. 0030. Thanks for the clarification regarding categories, meanings of words(expressions)/type of being/grammatical use of words. You are right; there is a tendency [or of me] to treat mixed up; however, i always thought, if we start from grammatical use, if a particular word is assigned to one category, then any use of the same "word" (same combination of letters) is in fact a DIFFERENT WORD. For example if we have a word for the sequence P4 and it appears in three different grammatical-uses/-contexts, then each is different P4a, P4b, and P4c, only that we USE with invisible subscript. I think once a word had been assigned to a particular grammatical context [say noun], then it's immateial/impossible the "same word" is being used in a different context; the second occurence is "subscripted", different word; the treating the "combination of letters" as "unintended as unchanged" is infact deceptive; the usage by the common parlance is not anything wrong, but i think the insistence the philosophiser [what to call a non-philosopher assuming philosophy!] be confined by the constraint is.

3. 0123. I already said i have a prejudice for "a priori"; [i have too little a part of life left to learn fully]? So Kant's polychotomy is (1) Quantity, (2) Quality, (3) Relation, and (4) Modality (to provide for Truth or non-physical?). And all a priori! my interest!

4. 0206. You need categories not be connected with a priority.

5. 0221. Universality and particularity. Any relation with genus and species. [Esp since Aristotle].

6. 0246. I think the contexts referred is "five something" and it makes meaning only as "5s", and "5" or "s" do not form a dichotomy of "5s"; when separate entirely unconnected with each other, completely unpredict each other, inconceivable as related; meaning is generated only as "5s", and the independent meanings of "5" and "s", in the {Realm of compound}, is only "if any" and incidental.

And my preference being only for abstraction and not concrete, i add quantity later form, as the former does not have a physical possibility in the absence of the later.

0254. i thought i subsumed affection in action. Regarding quality, why i require it separate of form/substance? Familiarity? Probably yes. I think, if i am familiar with the name "instanton" [1981?] and the way i have understood is correct, i may even define category is sufficient as single; it constitutes/comprises all some six aspects. [i may be extending the application of the word instanton, but i had always found it 'similar to my intendd meaning" therefore i simply do]. [instanton as i have used here uses it's physical description as an "event particle", a particle that ensculpts an action.]

#H1-199. Ref BO Jan 23, 2011 3:25 am.

DIMENSION: As we[i] acquire language, as [i] ascribe meaning! I in these pages, use "dimension" entirely unrelated to anything quantitative, in an entirely qualitative sense; usually i mean a fundamental property, like charge or mass or time. I meant i require a "qualitativeness" of quantity [a concept i am comfortable to use atleast since 1989 C1 qualitative productivity, a model i used to concentrate on my banking work]. Does not quantity as used here possess that quality-describability; undoubtably there cannot be qualitativeness and quantitativeness without each other. The only thing is i use the name quality as a priori, and quantity as a posteriori ["physically"; first there might have been born and we we might have known 1 only, then only 2] [as if these a-pr and a-po don't depend on each other!], and therefore my slant for a-priori.

2. I have written i drop etc, but i reject? where i will imagine my qualification to?

i would only say i don't find since more blindness remains to be understood.

And proposing an alternative? Not until i find myself to need to have the absent idea. [it is all right to write pages, but where to wish if it does not come more or less spontaneous?].

SN: "if a particular word is assigned to one category, then any use of the same "word" (same combination of letters) is in fact a DIFFERENT WORD..."

Well, the problem is that they are not different words and the brain knows they aren't. Take the word 'I' and the word 'eye.' Different words? They aren't even spelled the same. But there is a little corner of one's mind in which they are the same. Homophones, homographs, homonyms, all.

And to confuse the matter, there are derived words, like courageous, derived from courage.

And then we have metaphor on top of all that.

The dreaming mind can switch from one to another with the alacrity of a gymnast.

Aristotle discusses the problem in the ***Categories.***

SN: "i fancy 'a priori.'"

The problem I see in ***a priori*** categories is that the world is known ***a posteriori.*** The categories which are sufficient to describe the real world are also sufficient to describe that small part of it which can be said to be knowable ***a priori.*** Knowledge of Kant's ***a priori*** categories, however, tells us next to nothing about the real world.

SN: "I have written i drop etc, but i reject? where i will imagine my qualification to?

i would only say i don't find since more blindness remains to be understood.

And proposing an alternative? Not until i find myself to need to have the absent idea. [it is all right to write pages, but where to wish if it does not come more or less spontaneous?]."

OK... Definition is by genus and differentia. In other words, to define a thing one first specifies what is like it, its 'genus' and then identifying what makes it different from other members of that genus, its 'differentia.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus-differentia_definition

Now the 'Categories' give us the limits on similarity. Any two things which are truly similar belong to the same category.

Now if quantity is not a category, how can we define quantities? Mathematicians define things all the time... circle, square, even, odd, prime, etc. All these terms can be defined by genus and differentia. How is this possible if there is no principle of similarity covering all these things?

#H1-202. Ref BO jan23,11.

@*. 0818. If the intention is to give allowance to homographs,etc, probabaly that gives a more practical listing; disallowance probably renders it more formalised. I mind neither, though usually i tend to go toward a certain high density level of meaning. [Long back, i intended meaning density maximisation.]

@*. 0826. You say a priori > Can be. But i somewhat equated a priori with "original", and therefore was the fascination. Now i have come to know present is also as "sanctified" as original, and therefore i think now can be interested in both a-prand a-po.

#H1-205. Ref BO Jan23,11,1057. Circle, for me, is an form/object. Even, for me, is a quality. Being a non-mathematician, for me only numbers is quantity. The area of a circle is quantitative, but that and neither the formula nor the value render the circle as a quantity. Even if you use a circle to measure a larger area eg 8.4 circles, there too you are comparing only the area, and the circle here is a tool, and only the 8.4 is the quantity.

For our benefit, let me reduce the sample, amd see what i will do, where there in an universe where there are only two men and nothing else. Here, how many categories i will find? Form, yes. Quantity, i think there is a case, here the ensemble is only 2 strong. Whether the 2 is the property of the ensemble or the form?

But i think (1) i require a "category" have an independent existence, like a form or quality. (2) When there are two men and one woman in the universe, i think it becomes different. The 3 quantity is the bulk property/quality of the ensemble. Of which 2 and 1 are similar parts of 3. The men and women constitute species and genus, and the highest genus (here genus itself) constitutes form/matter. I shall accept as category what are all there when only one: one man: has a form/object/matter, has qualities/idea; oneness is not a unique character there, it's almost general and redundant, i don't think it bestows any special/necessary ascription to the one man universe. Would he have known/felt himself? Would he have sensed his parts? Would he have felt to count himself? He would have however counted his parts; now then the universe on that limited counted would have become as-if non-unitary the quantity of the parts i see as a quality of the universe, not as the quality of the individual parts; the quantity does not it's meaning independent of the one-man-body-parts or one-man-universe.

This is how a non-mathematical person's thought. He wouldn't stop constructing his own wonder of the architecture of th universe, but wouldn't dream he knows the mathematicians' constructed architecture of the universe. He does not have a choice/alternative/option other than his limited wonder and the limited stories he can rely upon thereon.

Since the real world is polynonlinear and not unilinear, i think 2m+1w is the most possible reduction, and 3m etc wouldn't be appropriate. I have laid bare the psychology of my thought, and it's upto you to be the psychiatrist.

SN: "Being a non-mathematician, for me only numbers is quantity."

Well then, call it 'mathematical objects.'

SN: "i thought i subsumed affection in action."

Is an affection an action? Take the color 'red.' is it an action? Well, the normal meaning of action is an event occurring at a specific time... or at least that it is tied to a certain time, or extended across some interval. For example, suppose I walk to a store. I start walking at a certain time and I stop walking at a certain time.

Can we say the same thing of 'red?' Is red tied to a specific time? It certainly can be extended over time. Thus a traffic light will become red for a short period of time and then switch to green and then to yellow...

But as it seems to me, the change in the traffic light from red to green to yellow, is incidental to its having been red. One can just as well imagine a traffic light eternally stuck on red. There is nothing in the redness that requires it to change to something else.

Not so when it comes to walking!! Yes, you might imagine my eternally walking to the store --- but only on unnatural terms. If I were walking to the store, I would eventually get there and no longer be walking to the store. You might imagine the store to be eternally moving away from me, of course, so I could never get there. Even so, as I walk, I would be continually changing... at one moment my right foot would lead, at another, my left foot would lead.

But the eternally-red traffic light would not be changing. It would simply be red... always red and nothing but red. Change does not enter into my idea of red. But change is inseparable from my idea of walking. Even if we imagine my eternally walking to the store, we get that only by imagining that the store is eternally moving away from me, changing in the process.

Think of affection as force. I have a kettlebell, an iron weight I can use to exercise my muscles...

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

Right now it is sitting on the floor, unmoving, pressing against the floor with a constant force as dictated by Newton's law for gravity. The floor, meanwhile, is pressing up against the kettlebell with an equal and opposite force. The kettlebell will sit there unmoving for as long as I wish it to sit there. No action is involved in its pressing against the floor. If I go to it and lift up with a force greater than its weight it will begin to move... F=MA. My lifting it is an action.

Force causes action. But not every force causes action. Balanced forces --- like the force of the kettlebell exactly balanced by an opposite force coming from the floor --- do not result in action. When forces are not balanced, motion results to reestablish that balance. F=MA.

Affection is like force. The force of a red-light photon hitting the retina of my eye is minuscule... but it is a force and it causes an action in the retina. It is amplified by the retina and passed on as an action in my nerves. Similar things can be said of the other senses... whatever causes an action in my nerves must have exerted a force on them.

H1-222. Ref Bill Overcamp, Jan 24, 2011 10:23 pm. I liked your detailed explaining. Thanks for considering your much time, i hope i will repay the debt.

I read SEP on Categories and followed links for the last 5 hours, and now have read half through wikipedia article on Peirce. I found the biography so likeable, but the questions rise:

1.

@*. SPONTAENITY as absolute chance? - i was thinking as very high "certainty"!, very hardwork -rigorous elective - Something must have done very hard work for spontaneity, a rarified quality to arise [god!]- Bill, waiting for you to say.

1b. (wp/tychism)

@*. If nothing else nor profound, it's absolutely boundary-breaking to me.

2. FIRSTNESS: hesitation/seminality/intimations/incipience/differentiation/development/unformed/gestation/reflexive/dynamic/half-conceived/SOME/emergent/protic

SECONDNESS: particular

THIRDNESS: general

3.

@*. This above is to say the information that describes in details a single object is just not generalisable; and no generality is a particular object.

The product of the above some cnstant maximum available information? I think the multiplication operator would hardly apply; somehow i feel it's multiplying two zeros; of two a and b which have nothing to mean to each other; here is when a x b = 0?

4. After Rhetoric and Meditations, sir Bill, may you go for

5.

@*. using SURPRISE and NEW in logic. so long back.

6. >

@*. Not only he must have been a genius, not with standing any thing, she must have been a goddess.

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p32.html

#H1-248. i spent the last three hours in a quest to make the next posting to this thread. I only thought that the best i can do is to simply list the various "categories" listed by various philosophers, collecting from the SEP article(Amie L. Thomasson) all such concepts/categories favoured by the different philosophers. Or atleast i can take the contemporary views, leaving out the older. But if i do that, i have to analyse all of them, and give my opinion here. That will be a big exercise for which i may be too tired now, or may not have time in the near future. So i opt for a short cut. Of the some contemporary cateorisations listed, i find, that of Ingvar Johansson's is of first interest to me presently. And i list his categories. Trusting it fits in to be a polychotomy/nonochotomy:

(1) Space-time: the framework;

(2) State of affairs: This was one of my favorites, by this i meant a combination of action/actualities/context?;

(3) Quality (includes dichotomously, substance and property): this is to represent physical materials;

(4) External Relation;

(5) Grounded Relation;

(6) Inertia;

(7) Spontaneity (another of my favorite ideas)

(8) Tendency:"purposeful intrinsic self-change";

(9) Intentionality (includes dichotomously, real and fictional):intention.

The two relations and inertia, i need to know more about, why they cannot cannot be subsumed in property; similarly substance and property may be made independent categories, and inertia subsumed either in substance or property; tendency is common to physical and biological objects; intention is to give space to biologicals; spacetime also i can allot to substance.

So i cannot be liberated from my fixations; i go to the reduced monotony: substance, property, spontaenity, tendency, and intention.

When everything is available in the search engines (say Bing),need i add a biographical link here? Anyway:http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/