SUMMARY UNDERSTANDING OF LEIBNIZ'S MONADOLOGY

Logic (which Leibniz calls reasonable things, but which I call systems), is infallible so far
as it truly demonstrates logic. Facts, on the other hand, are irreducible only becuase there
is an infinite conitngency extending from it to other facts. Where logic is contingent, it
is not perfect. Where facts relate to logic, they are provable, but only because their parts
may be understood to be reducible. In a sense, because their parts are infinite.

If everything is perfect, then if there is an experience of everything, it may be called
God and it exists.

There is relatively little difference between God and the imitations of God, because so far
as lesser things go, greater things are the closest thing to becoming God. In this way, lesser
things can be greater things by providing a path for the simpler constitutions.

Beings act in pleasure-modules, so that the imperfect identity is a realization about the
ultimate purpose of the module, seen as it were, objectively. Thus, in terms of causes,
there is nothing undesirable that does not serve some efficient purpose.

Besides this,

He places limitations and appears to assume that power is only one thing.

NEW BOOK RELEASE! GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES OF MEANING!

GRAND-UNIFIED THEORIES OF MEANING:

IDEAS GLEANED FROM N-DIMENSIONAL POLYVERSES

The book unites many separate concepts of dimensional worlds...

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This is a very cool project culminating from years of genius research on the nature of hyper-dimensions. The goal of the project came about through a gradual accretion of highly perfected category structures, each representing, at least metaphorically, one whole dimensional slot in reality, much like our current three-and-a-halfth dimension. The goal of the book was to assemble a categorical typology for each dimension, up to the largest n-th dimension I could find. As you might predict, I eventually left gaps within the system, but given the rigor of my research, I was able (not lazily), to adopt one perfect typology for each one of the first SIXTEEN dimensions, six full dimensions beyond what some believe is even mathematically conceivable! But since my system is somewhat avant-garde and un-traditional (yet logically coherent), I find no problem with introducing additional complex dimensionality. In fact, I have included a sampling of even higher dimensions than sixteen, as offered by my longer papers (...64th, 78th, 100th). Putting this material together without my background in dimensionalism would have been an exhausting task. And I hope the project strikes my readers as one which as I believe is worthy of the highest ambitions. I am also previously the author of other books on related topics, including books on philosophical coherence such as The Dimensional Philosopher‘s Toolkit, Coherent Systems Theory, and Coherent Logic. In many ways this text, by drawing on so many of the separate complete and incomplete projects, surpasses them all!---Nathan Coppedge August 2nd 2015, New Haven CT.

This text is now available on Amazon HERE.

INSIGHTS PER RICHARD R.

I have come across a series of writings with relatively profound qualities. The work is by the nearly-anonymous Richard R. I will do my best to translate the sincere philosophical investigations of this person, who I take to be young and sincere in his pursuits of philosophy.

"Perhaps an understanding of sound could not come without an understanding of all senses." ---Richard R. [July 10 / 2015]

Each sense is a macrame of its sensibilia. ---Nathan Coppedge

"Thus, for sight there seems to be an immediate/non-immediate way of distributing the terms." ---Richard R. [July 10 / 2015]

If within is without, without is within ---Nathan Coppedge

"For any sound, one cannot create the sound themselves and even if they did they would already have to be an ounce or a sprinkle of forgetfulness in/with the thing, because if one can/could hear the thing then it must already be there.  For any sound then, the cause is completely lost." ---Richard R. [July 10 / 2015]

Sound is in some way psychic, is what one must conclude, to hear a symphony ---Nathan Coppedge

For Richard's information, the general method, if you have patience for it, has been:

Real jolts ---> Big jumps

"All sounds then are not sounds, but noises." ---Richard R. [July 10 / 2015]

Here, I agree. And (surprisingly) I have said the exact same thing already on Yahoo! Answers.

"So I don’t remember my alien mother or my alien father." ---Richard R. [July 4 / 2015]

We relatively exist ---Nathan Coppedge

"For this theory to work everything must be covered in guilt ... as it could always still have a memory of the thing but misidentify the thing itself, and yet still act with it through a misinterpretation that could exist as a misidentification but not as something that could use the thing differently then it was designed to be used..." ---Richard R. [July 9th, 2015]

Or, perhaps what he meant was that one must design a new purpose for the thing, e.g. metaphysics, which it did not originally have...

Overall, I give Richard R. high marks for his profound thoughts, many of them being ones I wished I had had myself (rather recently).

New Papers Exploring My Recently Re-Discovered Influences

On Graham Harman's The Quadruple Object (2010 and perhaps earlier on his blog. He uses a diagonal opposition of polar opposites, but does not use it to construct sentences).

On Quentin Meillassoux's Philosophy (from 2006 in French, and 2008 in English. He is the source of radical concepts of contingency along with Stephen Gould).

(The) Completed Thoughts

When Popper says in his Objective Knowledge that objectivity depends on some ‘objective fact’ what he may be referring to is the following idea. Say I physically rotate a piece of junk mail around a new package containing a precious book. The piece of junk mail may be interpreted one way as ‘inspiring’ new ideas, such as semantic ones. But, a better way is to see the piece of junk mail as objectively obstructing some future knowledge which I would gain if I had not rotated the junk mail around the precious book. The case would be trivial, except that it is highly metaphorical. We begin to think that indeed, the precious book could be rotated around things --- What would happen then?


When Cassirer writes:

The simplest and surest way to demonstrate the significance of the universal symbolic function for the formation of the theoretical consciousness would seem to turn to the highest and most abstract achievements of pure theory. For in them the connection stands out in full brightness and clarity. ^1

How different it would be, if he had expressed a desire to turn symbols into functions.

[1. Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale U, 1957. P. 45].


If Immanuel Kant had taken a grasp of Descartes’ mathematics, he might have reached a universal theory of language which he would term metaphysical, and have abandoned his concept of the Noumena!


If Wittgenstein had seen that “The general form of the proposition is the essence of a proposition.” ^2 without contradicting himself, he might also have been led to imitate Rene Descartes. Of course, with Wittgenstein there is nothing to do but learn, but how little learning there is! It is as if Wittgenstein were communicating the dreams of Strunk & White.


[2. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.“ Major Works. Basil Blackwell, trans. New York: Harper Perennial, 1958, 2009].



If Isaac Newton had known that an object pushed by a slanting surface can gain altitude if the slope is less than the sharpness of the vertical, then he might have thought about perpetual motion machines instead of cannons and prisms!


How different if LeFebvre’s genius in The Production of Space(^3) had been turned towards logical theories, as opposed to those native to social science!

[3. LeFebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Donald Nicholson-Smith, trans. Malden: Blackwell, 1991. P. 100].



If Avi Sion had abandoned his Aristotelian study in favor of something more artistic and metaphorical, what a difference there would be.


If Nietzsche’s On the Geneology of Morals were not devoted to the detesting of Jews, but to the development of a logical metaphysics, what a difference there would be.

The above text is now available as an academic article HERE.

Most of the Last Month

I've been in the top 300,000 authors on Amazon, according to records

View my Amazon Author profile at: http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge.

Statements on the Square of Opposition

Recently I discovered a link to a device very similar to the Semiotic Square. I immediately became interested in disproving the logical device's purported logical validity.

Here is what I wrote in criticism (note especially the second paragraph):

[At Left: The Square of Opposition, which I intend to criticize, and Below: the Categorical Deduction diagram that I mean to defend].

[In reference to the Square of Opposition,] The graphical design alone is one of the simplest symbols in philosophy, logic, symbolics, and semiotics: it simply means 'modifying something', and in my view it is a rather incomplete notion of coherence. For example, if we have the categories they grant of 'None', 'All', 'Some', and 'Some not', we could add 'ambiguously some', 'ambiguously all' 'arbitrarily some' 'arbitrarily all' etc. This shows a clear pattern of incoherence in the formula, since in my view, although arbitrariness and ambiguity might apply to all cases, they are themselves in some sense, opposites. In other words, how do we know that 'some' are not 'all' by qualification, let alone whether ambiguous cases are arbitrated on the level of 'everything' versus on the level of 'nothing'? There is a deep need to find exclusion, a tool the square of opposition does not use well. Where is the logic? It is a little unfair, but I think the answer is categorical deduction, using opposites.


On the other hand [still referring to the Square of Opposition as opposed to Categorical Deduction], I can see how the diagram is inspired to create an exclusive set, it's just that it takes a kind of spiral pattern which does not easily return to its point of origin. Performing a categorical deduction on the set, we would conclude that 'Something is not nothing where everything is something' OR 'Something is not something where everything is nothing'. I'm afraid these statements do not hold up, because 1. In the first statement, it is the wrong kind of conservatism. We shouldn't need to prove everything is true to prove SOME things are true. 2. In the second case, instead of being conservative, it is the wrong type of generalization. There is no necessary connection between irrationalist statements of contradiction and the abnegation of all properties. Indeed, irrational properties may exist, under the right semantic conditions. So, the square of opposition rests on two fallacies, namely A. generic assumptions and B. A specific form of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Added to this is the reality that I've virtually invented the complexity of the diagram in order to analyze it. Remember, the categorical deduction diagrams are different, even if they seem more simple, they usually involve more substantive data (i.e. opposite words), and a more coherent---perhaps the only simple and coherent----logical method.

Alternate method: Re-arranging the Square of Opposition to fit the standard of categorical deduction arguably yields the order (All, None, Not Some, Some), because the alternate order (All, None, Some, Not Some) yields trivial cases (1. Everything is nothing that is not something, and 2. Everything that is not something is not something,) , and the alternate order (All, Some, Not Some, None) does not complete a cycle, and amounts to quantification (what I call the quantification fallacy, a case in which data cannot return to itself or self-reflect, due in this case to beginning with everything and ending with nothing). Accepting the chosen order, the categorical deduction is different, but I suspect it is equally problematic due to the flawed choices. 1. Everything is nothing when something is not something, and 2. Everything is something when something is not something. Instead of being trivial, this example is purely relativistic, and in a coherent context, that doesn't hold up. The categorical deduction is neither relative, nor trivial, nor problematic, and so it must be the method that is preferred.

----Nathan Coppedge

Originally comments on Facebook.com/dimensionism

In response to the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/