12,080
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Notes/Factorization And Reification (view source)
Revision as of 03:15, 25 June 2009
, 03:15, 25 June 2009→Work Area: markup
==Work Area==
==Work Area==
===Work Note 1===
<pre>
<pre>
Let me illustrate what I think that a lot of our controversies
Let me illustrate what I think that a lot of our controversies
about nominalism versus realism actually boil down to in practice.
about nominalism versus realism actually boil down to in practice.
"i"
"i"
</pre>
</pre>
===Work Note 2===
The word ''intension'' has recently come to be stressed in our discussions. As I first learned this word from my reading of Leibniz, I shall take it to be nothing more than a synonym for ''property'' or ''quality'', and shall probably always associate it with the primes factorization of integers, the analogy between having a factor and having a property being one of the most striking, at least to my neo-pythagorean compleated mystical sensitivities, that Leibniz ever posed, and of which certain facets of Peirce's work can be taken as a further polishing up, if one is of a mind to do so.
As I dare not presume this to constitute the common acceptation of the term ''intension'', not without checking it out, at least, I will need to try and understand how others here understand the term and all of its various derivatives, thereby hoping to anticipate, that is to say, to evade or to intercept, a few of the brands of late-breaking misunderstandings that are so easy to find ourselves being surprised by, if one shies away from asking silly questions at the very first introduction of one of these parvenu words. I have been advised that it will probably be fruitless to ask direct questions of my informants in such a regard, but I do not see how else to catalyze the process of exposing the presumption that "it's just understood" when in fact it may be far from being so, and thus to clear the way for whatever real clarification might possibly be forthcoming, in the goodness of time. Just to be open, and patent, and completely above the metonymous board, I will lay out the paradigm that I myself bear in mind when I think about how I might place the locus and the sense of this term ''intension'', because I see the matter of where to lodge it in our logical logistic as being quite analogous to the issue of where to place those other i-words, namely, ''idea'', capitalized or not, ''impresssion'', ''intelligible concept'', and ''interpretant''.
==Discussion==
==Discussion==