Continuing from this post:
"Veronese's continuum -- intuitive, prelogical, pretopological -- starts from a non-set theoretic notion
of emptiness, a weaving and amalgamating synthetic notion which can be
viewed as a smooth fluid, both finite and unlimited, in which parts melt
naturally with the whole" (31).
On 32 he discusses Brouer's continuum, where human minds can both
mark the continuum and observe it, sounding a lot like Bryant's use of
Spencer-Brown. Brouer calls this 'two-oneness' (32) (akin to our notions
of Buddhist emptiness as 'not one, not two'), and how the general
possibilia of continuum moves into the actual particular (33). This
leads to a theory of 'boundaries unfolding' (34).
Starting on 36 he talks of Vopenka's alternative set theory, which
"breaks the usual set theoretic equivalence between intensionality and
extensionality." I'm again reminded of Bryant's notions of the
difference between the two, where the virtual withdrawn of a suobject's
endo-structure is intensional, and the actual exo-relations in its parts
are extensional. Zalamea also notes that "very little of the indefinite
and infinite range of intensional possibilia can be effectively
actualized" (36). For Peirce, "the realm of possibilia and the
intensionality of real potentials reign over the actual extensionality
of existence" (37).
Note: All of which are discussed from other vantages in this thread (shameless plug).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.