Page 70 - Studio International - December 1973

ART THEORY& PRACTICE
parametrized by the, what are now, quasi-set might mean making generalizations about the mapped out with whatever quasi-rigorous
conditions, groups, lists or whatever, along semantic characteristics, etc., etc., of the surface closure conditions for the quantification of a set,
with rationality crises, atomic types/tokens. (We structure, generalizations in terms of the and the `set= domain' situation as it is now
have a membership problem to set or domain. minimal/maximal set conditions (a generating drawn into common-sense ontology. You've
Is this because of some type of theoretical or grammar based on the discoveries made by the got problems . . .
categorical framework supervening over the, or lexicon, cf. Katz, Fodor). Referring to set We may think of the adequacies of grammar
implied by the, 'outside the brackets' conditions as an example of generalizations will interrelated with the adequacies of a set
operators ?) If in an impressionistic sense, the turn us back to the correspondence incoherence theoretical model. The grasping of a concept
aspect of having someone giving a response to a relation if we take the correspondence to be of a might be measured as far as adequacy is
stimulus, the learning dimensions would be in shallow order of generalization of linguistic concerned. We've yet to think of redundancy
picking up, or positively generalizing or having behaviour. by the numbers of semantic measures plus
a test of some kind, of one piece of association in The Carnapian situation presupposes numbers of branchings from a surface
order to see if that association worked (say) principles for a range of state descriptions. description, i.e. making some remarks about the
psychologically. So, would it be a question of With the induction logic one doesn't have to meaninglessness of carrying on/going on is
generalization of associations ? And then what have a deontic, epistemic, etc., logic inasmuch reflexively absurd (the performance denies the
characteristics would the generalizations have as as, I suppose, one is still with the true-false assertions about non-competence ?). This is a
far as the old question of closure was concerned, condominium (or classical situation). This problem of what is the exterior of this situation
positive generalization to a degree, etc., etc.? rather than a situation where one has to deal, (come to the end of the problem's reification)
How many different aspects of the 'nature successfully or not, with satisfaction. And, of and when you have the exterior how can you
observed' can we use as central aspects in the course, in the Carnapian inductive logic one has go on ? How long can you talk of a context
construction/reconstruction of that part of no trouble, at least no concern for/with the without radical pragmatics of going on in an
nature ? Implication ? Consequence ? recursion, regress (or whatever) of the annotated discourse situation when you've
Conformity ? Compatibility ? One of the logical propositional attitudes. revised Kripke's modalities of semantics in
operators ? The notion of a set? The notion of a acts as a sort of weak implication, or relation to epistemic logics, and when you've
member of a set (i.e. the constitutional problems embedding, through the pragmatic parameters, revised Kripke's semantics out of existence ?
of individuation, re-identification, and, of indexing items that make it possible for one This goes back to meaninglessness and the idea
presumably, splitting up) ? As a relation between to have that indexical expression iterated as it is of getting round the problem of tense. Given
one piece of the discourse and another piece of in the lexicon entries. is some sort of all the ways of formulating and describing
the discourse (the next or whatever might crop quasi-logical operator in the Gedanken- tense (outside that exterior), i.e. the range of
up considering the logical conditions of the experiment situation. It may be symptomatic ideas accessible to you (but there are some
relationships) in being relative to a set of of the 'let's see what we're doing' Gedanken- approximate equivalents (to those ideas) which
propositional attitudes, the relation existing is experiment that we have a pathway described may consist of a particular absurdity caught in
the overcoming of your social problem of rather like a free logic. that particular way), there is an approximate
has no problems of
having a society. How it exists might be another transitivity, etc. However, is an equivalent consisting of the meaningful, or, if
problem, rather a puzzle, to look at. Certain entailment (of sorts) between logics, in fact, you like, the ontological vocabulary, and the
given contributions are going to reflect positively between what may not even resemble postulates, ideological mappings you have started on. In
generalizable functions that involve a notion of axioms, propositions, sentences reducible to a all these problems there is the question, the
`influence' between those given contributions. syntax of a logic/set of logics. And that's all logic doubt, of your hoping to go on without the
Induction here is not a Carnapian type of might be, i.e. a given yet incomplete number of reflexivity situation of meaninglessness
rational induction and this point in fact will pragmatic and indexical parameters/ occurring de facto.
reflect back on the lack of concern (if you like) dimensions/axes that allow, as it were, the Obviously if you could develop indexing
over an interference with nature by our reification of an individual non-radically small within the external and internal question of our
`measurements' in 'observation'. To be piece of ideology bound in that intensional logic. contradictions, you could form a nesting of
concerned with that sort of problem is to be Quantification becomes, rightly so, an sequences of indexicality where degrees of
screwed up about one's coherence theory being a important aspect of logic so that we have points indexicality and externality, etc. were measured.
correspondence theory. Now we may, in fact, of reference and make sure that it is possible But then you fall back on a part of that group of
have a strange relation between correspondence that we can/may know how we have these points logics, i.e. the deontic part, where you
and coherence theories apropos an intensional of reference. This goes back to the rather laconic recognized that there would be a part of
mapping, or a group of logics setting out lists of point about there being a closer relationship language (part of your nature) which had an
ordered pairs (etc.), i.e. coherence may as well between the transformation within the logical indexical value of nought. Presumably that
be a correspondence to (what else but) linguistic space of the indexes (Hayward) and the would be fine for the intensional logics, except
reality. An increase in the complexity of the grammatical transformation in the lexicon/ that intensional logics are dependent upon some
coherence theory will result in a proportionate dictionary, i.e. the modalities in the indexes form of display mapping, extensionality, a
increase in the complexity of the depth were propositional attitudes anyway. Hence non-indexical point of reference.
structure explained in the correspondence `through logical/ethical space' (similarly with Semantic relationships are (a) reducible to a
theory relative to a particular (in a series) the lexicon's approach to a set of fundamental pragmatics, and (b) alterable inasmuch as
grammatical reality (rather than constructed, reference points) and the coagulation of they're dependent upon what we take as
although this is, perhaps, contra-Chomsky grammar and logic highly relative to an pragmatics (and so as a semantics). Given that
inasmuch as competence is constructivitstic, but individual. arbitrariness, or in fact non-arbitrariness, we
in a similar manner so are most logics, etc., The depth structure of 'carrying on' would face ideology in, obviously, a different manner
constructivistic). Because of the problems of the have excluded carrying on in the quasi- from Hintikka's epistemic and doxastic logics.
intensionalities branching (diverging/ dialectical/dialogical fashion that one might have Our instrumentalities may show an ordering of
converging) at certain depths, even, maybe, entertained. One has conjunctivitis here and no semantic relationships between epistemic
finding loops in the pathway structures from the problem about the possible deviance of logics and (a) the deontic logic of the nature
given basic elements, then it need not be the conjoining mal-formed or crossed types. observed, and (b) our own (the observer's)
case that we have a relative coherency theory to Perhaps just a series of tokens ? Rather, we deontic logic, although (a) and (b) might be given
match one's grasp of linguistic reality. Matching don't have sets if we don't have intension a quasi-discreteness. Just how silly would an
264