Philosophy Group

Disciplines: Humanities: Philosophy:
Curators:
Started: Jul 11, 2012
Started by: Nathan Coppedge
Seeking comments on a categorical method

I have defined in my book that axiometry is the study of categories using axes, as in mathematics, on the basis of the Cartesian Coordinate System. Categories are defined to be complete and exclusive. The opposite of the category is chosen for the category opposite the axial position. However, since a category does not occupy both sides of an axis, but rather is framed devisively by multiple such axes of comparison, the result is that every category is compared only by referring to multiple axes of comparison. The center, called the 'mote' is the point of universal conjunction (Consider this a lemma. By universal I mean that every category is exclusive, and there is a premise that two exclusions which are opposite describe conceptually all intermediate territories, by some method of analysis, which is not necessarily automatic. That the mote is a universal conjunction may not be necessary). The number of axes of comparison is equal to d dimensions, and the number of categories tends to be 2 ^ d. Also, the number of unique comparisons, which I call categorical deductions is not equal to the number of categories, but actually a smaller number, probably n / 2 or perhaps n / d (it's ambiguous in the case of two dimensions, which is the standard format).

Let me describe a case which you may or may not agree with, and you can verify that it fits within the method. Let it be noted that there is no definite certainty that the terms chosen ACTUALLY ARE opposites, by such a rigorous standard as to fit into this system. Perhaps the exceptions that are found are actually exceptions to the reality of whether the terms ACTUALLY EMBODY opposites. However, I find it easy to accept that two opposite describe all intermediate territories. This has been familiar already in positive versus negation, free-will and determinism (although I argue this dichotomy is incorrect) and other comparisons.

Here is a case: Strength, Ethics, Weakness, Immorality defines four squares. It is important that opposites have a range of d-dimensions from their opposites, unless the categories are sub-divided.

Here it can be seen that the deduction involves the following: Strong ethics implies weak immorality, and weak ethics implies strong immorality. That is intuitively correct.

However, according to the same reasoning, we could also conclude less obvious things (assuming the premises are correct). We could determine that the beautiful stoic implies sensitivity to ugliness, and if determination is opposite to ambiguation, and the spiritual opposes the material, then we could state that the physical properties of determination of the sun oppose the spiritual properties of the ambiguation of the sea.

Does this seem too Pre-Socratic? Am I delusional to think this could be an advanced system of knowledge?

Does anyone agree it could have logical usefulness? My entire system depends on it's validity. What I believe to be one of the most important logical systems constructed so far in history. Notice it's exponential.

I welcome comments, although I'm not sure when I'll check back. Probably in the next few days or weeks.

I want to be very constructive, in case there is any usefulness whatsoever.

[I have also posted a method for sixteen categories that reduces to four instead of two on my blog, for those that are interested: hypercubics.blogspot.com]