PALMQUIST - Tree.13.13. Mapping Analytic Relations

D1 staweb.hkbu.edu.
hk
https://www.readability.com/articles/wsot9khe
staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk
D1
36 min read original
13. Mapping Analytic Relations

by Stephen Palmquist (stevepq@hkbu.edu.hk)
Inthefirstlectureonlogicwelearnedthatlogic-analyticlogic,thatis-abstracts
from the concrete truth of a proposition, and focuses attention first and
foremost on its bare (essentially mathematical) form, its truth value. This
week I want to explore some ways of converting this bare form into a richer,
pictorial form.
Philosophers since Aristotle, and even before that, have almost universally
recognized that logic and mathematics are closely related disciplines. Until
the middle of the nineteenth century, most philosophers would have said
this relationship is confined primarily to arithmetic, where functions such
as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division have clear analogies to
logical operators such as "and", "not", etc. But then a scholar named George
Boole (1815-1864) wrote a book defending what he called the "Algebra of
Logic". He demonstrated that algebraic relations are also closely related in
many ways to logical relations.
Although Boole's ideas are far too complex to examine in an
intro?/span>ductory course, I have mentioned his discovery because I
believe a similar discovery awaits us in the area of geometry. For this reason
I have already been using, throughout these lectures, several simple diagrams in a way that conforms to what I call the "Geometry of Logic". This
week I shall explain in detail just how these and other diagrams actually
function as precise "maps" of logical relations.The first two lectures will
examine ways of constructing maps that correspond to analytic and
synthetic relations, respectively. Lecture 15 will then provide numerous
1 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
D1 staweb.hkbu.edu.hk
examples of how we can use such maps to encourage and deepen our
insight.
A thoroughgoing analogy can be constructed between the structure of many
simple geometrical figures and the most fundamental kinds of logical
distinctions, though this has rarely, if ever, been fully acknowledged in the
past. The starting point of this analogy is the analytic law of identity (A=A);
it posits that a thing "is what it is". To choose a diagram that can accurately
represent this simplest of all logical laws, all we need
todoisthinkofthesimplestofall geometrical figures: a point. Techni-
2 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
cally, a point exists merely as a single position, with no

real extension in any direction, though of course, the
black spot representing a point in Figure V.1 must have
some extension in order for us to see its position.
Figure V.1: The Point as a Map of

an Identical Relation
The function of the law of noncontradiction is to contrast the solitary "A" of

the law of identity with its opposite, "-A". The geometrical figure that
extends a point beyond itself in a single direction is called a line. There are,
of course, two kinds of line: straight and curved. So also, there are two good
ways of depicting the logical opposition between "A" and "-A" in the form of
a geometrical figure: by using the two ends of a line segment, or by using the
inside and outside of a circle, as shown in Figure V.2:
(a) The Circle(b) The Line

Figure V.2: Two Ways of Mapping a 1LAR
Note that I have labeled these figures with a mere "+" and "-". These symbols
are derived directly from the law of noncontradiction, simply by dropping
the "A" from both sides of the "+A-A" equation. The "A" is a formal
representation for "some content", so dropping this symbol implies, quite
rightly, that in the Geometry of Logic we are concerned with nothing but the
bare logical form of the sets of concepts we use.
Sincethissimpledistinctionarisesoutofthelawsofanalytic logic, I refer to it
as a "first-level analytic relation" (or "1LAR"). As we shall see, representing
this law with the simpler equation, "+ -" (i.e., positivity is not negativity),
makes it much easier to work with more complex, higher levels of logical
3 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
opposition.
The circle and line segment can be used as maps of virtually any distinction
between two opposite terms. Such distinctions, as we learned from Chuang
Tzu last week, are a commonplace in our ordinary ways of thinking about
the world. We naturally divide things into pairs of opposites: male and
female, day and night, hot and cold, etc. In most cases I believe the line
segment offers the most appropriate way of representing such distinctions.
Since the circle marks out a boundary between "outside" and "inside", we
should employ this figure only when there is an imbalance between the two
terms in question-as, for example, when one acts as a limitation on the
other, but not vice versa.
Now if we were to stop here, the Geometry of Logic would not be a very
interesting subject. No one has any trouble seeing the logical relationship
between a pair of opposite terms, to say nothing of a single term in its
relation to itself. Using points, line segments, or circles in such a way is
helpful only when the terms in question do not define an obvious
opposition. This is especially true of the circle. For example, using a circle
to represent Kant's distinction between our necessary ignorance and our
possible knowledge, as we did in Lecture 7 (see Figures III.5 and III.10),
helped us fix in our minds the proper relationship between these two, with
the former limiting the extent of the latter.
In any case, one of the most interesting and useful tools in the Geometry of
Logic arises out of the simple application of the law of noncontradiction to
itself. By this I am referring to cases involving each side of a pair of opposed
concepts being itself broken down into a further pair of two opposing
concepts. As an example, let's consider the familiar concept "one day". We
all know how to perform the simple analytic process whereby we divide
"one day" into two more or less equal and opposite halves, called "daytime"
and "nighttime" (i.e., "not daytime"). This is a good example of a typical
1LAR. However, as with most 1LARs, if we try to apply this strict division to
every moment in a day, we find there are certain times during the day when
we hesitate to say whether it is "daytime" or "nighttime"; and as a result, we
make a further analytic division, between "dusk" and "dawn".
In order to translate this into the form of our logical apparatus, using "+"
4 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
and "-" combinations to replace the actual content of our distinctions, all
we need to do is add another "+" and "-" term, in turn, to each of the original
terms from the simple 1LAR. This gives rise to the following four
"components" (i.e., combinations of one or more +/- terms) of a
"second-level analytic relation" (or "2LAR"):
--+--+++
I call the first and last components (i.e., "--" and "++") pure, because both
terms are the same, whereas I call the middle two components (i.e., "+-" and
"-+") mixed, because they both combine one "+" and one "-".
If one pair of opposites is represented by a single line segment, then two can
best be represented by a combination of two line segments. As we have seen
on numerous occasions already, the four end points of a cross can serve as a
simple and balanced way of representing such a four-fold relation. But the
same 2LAR can also be represented by the four corners of a square (cf.
Figure II.3). I map the four components onto the cross and the square in the
following ways:
(a) The Cross(b) The Square

Figure V.3: Two Ways of Mapping a 2LAR
The position of the four components and the direction of the arrows on
each of these maps is, in a sense, arbitrary. In other words, the same
5 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
components could be arranged in a number of different ways and still

represent a 2LAR just as accurately. However, after experimenting with all
the different ways of constructing such maps, I have come to the conclusion
that these two examples represent the most common and appropriate
patterns. Moreover, the above maps both follow a fixed set of rules that can
help us avoid confusion and inconsistency in constructing our maps-though
they may not be any better than some alternative set of rules. The rules I
have chosen are, quite simply: (1) a "+" component is placed above and/or to
the left of a "-" component whenever possible, giving priority to the term(s)
that come first in each component; (2) an arrow between two components
with the same term in the first position points away from the pure
component; (3) an arrow between two components with different terms in
the first position points toward the pure component; and (4) an arrow
between two components that each contain only one term (i.e., the simple
opposites "+" and "-") should be double-headed, to depict the tension or
balance between them.
The components are mapped onto the cross in Figure V.3a according to
their complementary opposites. That means the two components located at
opposite ends of each line segment will share one common term. For
example, the first term in both components might be a "+", while the second
term will be a "+" on one side and a "-" on the other. By contrast, the
components mapped onto the square in Figure V.3b are organized according
to contradictory opposites. That means the component at any given corner
of the square does not overlap at all with the component at the opposite
corner. For example, if the component at one corner has a "+" in the first
position, the component at the opposite corner must have a "-" in that
position; and likewise for the second position.
The square is, in fact, the one geometrical figure that can be found fairly
consistently in most logic textbooks. For it is the formal basis of what is
commonly referred to as "the square of opposition". This square has proved
to be very helpful in clarifying for logicians the formal relations between
propositions that are opposed to each other in different ways (namely, as
"contradictions" or as "contraries"). However, I do not wish to dwell on that
well-known application here. Instead, since I've already used the cross as a
map on numerous occasions in these lectures, let's look more closely at how
6 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
it can represent the relationships between complementary opposites.

The cross enables us to visualize four distinct types of "first-level" logical
relationships (i.e., simple +/- oppositions) between such sets of four
opposing concepts. The first two can be called "primary" types. The first is
represented by the first term in each component; as we can see in Figure
V.3a, it is the same on both ends of each axis of the cross. So the first term in
each component actually labels the axis itself: the vertical axis can
therefore be called the "+" axis, and the horizontal axis can be called the "-"
axis. The second type is represented by the second term in each component,
and denotes the opposition between the two ends of any given axis. So the
second term in each component mapped onto the 2LAR cross represents a
"polar" (i.e., complementary) opposition-an opposition between two
concepts that also share something in common. The common factor is
represented by the first term of both components on a given axis of the
cross: + for the vertical and - for the horizontal.
The third and fourth types of first-level relationships visible on the cross
can be called "subordinate" types, because they are not as evident as the two
"primary" types. Hence, when we want to call attention to them, it is helpful
to draw a diagonal line through the center of the cross, either from the top
right to the bottom left, or from the top left to the bottom right. The former
diagonal line, as shown in Figures I.1, III.3, and IV.5, calls our attention to
the secondary complementary relationship existing between the
components with different first terms, but the same second term (i.e.,
between "--" and "+-", and between "-+" and "++"). The latter diagonal line
highlights the fourth type of first-level relationship, between pairs of
contradictory opposites (i.e., between the two pure components, "++" and
"--", and between the two mixed components, "+-" and "-+"). I have not
included this type of diagonal line in the maps used so far, but it would be
appropriate to add it to the cross any time we want to call special attention
to the two pairs of concepts that are diametrically opposed in a given 2LAR.
Understanding the complex web of logical relationships that exists within
any set of concepts composing a 2LAR helps us see that the cross cannot
properly be used to map the relationship between any randomly chosen set
of four concepts. Or at least, if we use it in this way, we may not be using the
7 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
cross to represent the logical form of a 2LAR. In that case the cross will only
be, at best, a nice picture, and at worst, a misleading over-simplification.
For only sets of concepts that can be shown to exhibit the set of
interrelationships defined above, and representable by the four +/components of a 2LAR, ought to be mapped onto the cross.
Having given this warning, I can now add that there is actually quite a
simple method of testing any set of four concepts that we think might be
related according to the form of a 2LAR. All we need to do is find two
yes-or-no questions whose answers, when put together, give rise to simple
descriptions of the four concepts we have before us. Thus, for example, in
order to prove that the four concepts mentioned above, "daytime",
"nighttime", "dusk", and "dawn", compose a 2LAR, all we need to do is posit
the two questions: (1) Is it obviously either daytime or nighttime (as
opposed to being a transition period)? and (2) Is it lighter now than at the
opposite time of day? This gives rise to four possible situations,
corresponding to the four components of a 2LAR as follows:
++Yes, it is obvious, and yes, it is lighter (= "daytime")
+- Yes, it is obvious, but no, it is not lighter (= "nighttime")
-+ No, it is not obvious, but yes, it is lighter (= "dawn")
-- No, it is not obvious, and no, it is not lighter (= "dusk")
This demonstrates that the four terms in question can be mapped properly
onto the 2LAR cross, as shown in Figure V.4a.
Perhaps I should also mention that we cannot produce a proper 2LAR by
combining any randomly chosen pair of two questions. Or at least, we must
be prepared for the possibility that in attempting to construct a 2LAR, one
or more of the possible combinations of answers might end up describing a
self-contradictory concept, or an impossible situation. For this reason, I use
the term "perfect" to refer to a 2LAR(or any other logical relation) in which
all the logically possible components also represent real possibilities. For
example, consider the two questions:
(1)Isitraining?and(2)Isthesunshining?Atfirst,onlythreeofthe
8 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
(a) Four Parts of a Day(b) Four Weather Conditions

Figure V.4: Two Examples Mapped onto the 2LAR Cross
four combinations of answers to these questions appear to depict real
possibilities. If we answer "Yes" to both questions, then it might seem that
we have discovered an impossible combination, since (at least here on
earth) it is cloudy, not sunny, whenever it rains. If this were the case, then
these two questions would compose an imperfect 2LAR. However, if we
think further about this fourth option, we will realize that it does represent
a real possibility. (As we shall see throughout this week, such surprises
often pop up when we use the Geometry of Logic as an aid to our reflection.)
For the sun does sometimes shine while it is raining: this is what is
happening whenever we see a rainbow! Hence even this example, as shown
in Figure V.4b, represents a perfect 2LAR, while at the same time
illustrating how such maps can help us gain new insights. (Incidentally, if
the second question were "Is it cloudy?", then this would be an imperfect
2LAR, since a "No" answer could not be combined with a "Yes" answer to
the first question.)
Remember the map of the four elements I gave in Lecture 4 (see Figure
II.4)? Now that we have analyzed the formal structure of distinctions
mapped onto the cross, we can actually test that traditional set of concepts
to see if it represents a perfect 2LAR. If fire is "++" and water is "--", then we
would expect these to be contradictory opposites. And they are. Water puts
out fire, and fire changes water into vapor. Likewise, if earth is "-+" and air
is "+-", we would expect earth and air to be similarly resistant. And they are.
Earth and air do not mix! What about the complementary opposites? Here
we find equally appropriate results: fire needs air and earth (i.e., fuel) in
9 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
order to continue burning; water can mix with air (as in soda) and with
earth (as in mud). So even though the ancient Greeks had not developed the
Geometry of Logic, they were intuitively able to choose, as their four basic
elements, materials that correspond in real life to the form of a perfect
2LAR.
Of course, there are actually more than four physical "elements" in the
universe; likewise, a day can be divided into more than just four parts, and
the weather has far more than just four variations! In the same way, the
process of analytic division can and does go on and on, forming increasingly
complex patterns of relations between groups of concepts. In this course we
have no time to examine the complex relations created by these "higher
levels" of analytic division. However, I would like to mention one final
example. But first I should point out that, no matter how far we go in
making analytic divisions, the patterns will always follow this very simple
formula:
C = 2t
where "C" refers to the total number of different components possible and
"t" refers to the number of +/- terms in each component. The latter,
incidentally, is always identical to the number of the level. Thus, as we have
seen, the number of divisions required to construct a 2LAR is two, the
number of terms in each resulting component is also two, and the total
number of components is four (22 = 4). Likewise, the number of divisions
required to construct a 3LAR is three, the number of terms in each resulting
component is three, and the total number of components is eight (23 = 8).
The higher the level of analytic relation, the more complex is the map that
has to be constructed to give an accurate picture of all the logical relations
involved. One good example of such a complex system can be found in the
ancient Chinese book of wisdom, the I Ching. This book describes a set of 64
"hexagrams" (i.e., six-part pictures), each representing some kind of life
situation. The book was originally used primarily for predicting future
events: in some arbitrary way, such as throwing dice, a person selects two of
the 64 hexagrams, and the transformation from one to the other is then
used as the basis for answering a question, usually about how some present
situation will change in the future. (Thus it is also called The Book of
10 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Changes.) For our purposes, of course, the predictive power of the I Ching is
not its main attraction; rather, its logical form is what interests us. For the
64 hexagrams actually function as six-term components of a 6LAR. The
traditional way of representing this system of logical possibilities is to use
sets of six solid or broken lines to define each hexagram. By simply
replacing the solid lines with a "+" and the broken lines with a "-", we can
translate this system directly into the one developed above. If we arrange
the components according to their contradictory opposites (as is normally
done in using the I Ching), then the intricate relationships between these
hexagrams can be mapped onto a sphere, which, when projected onto a
plane surface so that the opposite poles of the sphere are represented as the
center and the circumference of a circle, looks like this:
11 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Figure V.5: A Map of the 6LAR in the I Ching

Don't worry if this map confuses you. It is intended to present the logical
form of a highly complex system of concepts at a glance. If you are not
familiar with the system, the map is not likely to be very meaningful.
Nevertheless, I would like to end this lecture simply by pointing out that
this map bears a striking resemblance to the symmetrical pictures used in
some eastern religions (called "mandalas"). Such mandalas are constructed
not in order to clarify the logical structure of a set of concepts, but rather, in
order to stimulate new insights (and eventually, "enlightenment") in those
who use them as tools for meditation (see DW 157-159). As we shall see in
the next lecture, the Geometry of Logic itself is also not limited to such
analytic applications, but can actually touch upon the way we live our life.
14. Mapping Synthetic Relations
In the last lecture, we saw the orderly way logical patterns are constructed
when we use analytic logic in our thinking. This kind of pattern, we found,
can be directly related to the patterns exhibited by some simple geometrical
figures. This fact should not surprise us. For in both cases such patterns
originate in the mind. Recognizing these orderly patterns, Kant suggested
that reason itself contains a fixed, architectonic structure. And his
promotion of what he called reason's "architectonic unity" is an inseparable
aspect of his a priori approach. For his assertion that there are certain
necessary conditions for the possibility of any
humanexperience(seeLecture8)assumeshumanreasonoperatesaccording to
a fixed order. Because reason fixes this order-this architectonic -for us,
philosophers ought to do their best to understand and follow it whenever
they adopt an a priori perspective in their philosophizing (i.e., whenever
they ask what the mind imposes upon experience, rather than what it draws
out of experience). Kant believed philosophers ought to allow these
patterns to serve as an a priori "plan" for the construction of a philosophical
system, much as a building contractor uses the architect's blueprints as the
plan for constructing a building. It is no wonder, then, that Kant regarded
Pythagoras (c.569-c.475 B.C.), not Thales, as the first genuine philosopher
(see OST 392); for Pythagoras focused not on metaphysical issues, but on
mathematics and number mysticism.
12 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Logic is one kind of a priori perspective (see Figure IV.4), so we should not
be surprised to find such numerical patterns playing an important role in
this branch of philosophy. However, logical patterns do not relate only to
our a priori ways of thinking. As Pythagoras recognized, they also relate
very closely to the way we live our lives. That is one reason I ended the
previous lecture with an example from Chinese philosophy. In ancient
China, the I Ching was never regarded merely as a logical table of a priori
thought-forms. Most-perhaps even all-who used it were not even aware of
its neat, logical structure, as a perfect 6LAR. Rather, they used it intuitively,
as a reflection of the ever-present changes in their daily life situations. In
the real world, things do not remain eternally opposed to each other, as our
concepts might lead us to believe. Instead, opposites gradually fade into
each other by passing through an infinite series of degrees. Once we
recognize this fact, we might wish to view the line in Figure V.2b no longer
as representing an absolute separation, requiring a choice between two
discrete kinds, but as representing a continuum, containing infinitely many
degrees.
There is, in fact, another symbol from the Chinese tradition that performs
this same, synthetic function, even though it can also serve as a map of an
analytic relation. I am thinking here of the famous "Tai Chi" symbol,
depicting the opposition between the forces of yin (dark) and yang (light).
As shown in Figure V.6, this symbol can be regarded as simply another way
of mapping a 2LAR. However, in the Chinese traditionitsprimarysymbolicvaluewasquitedifferent, foritwasregarded
13 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
as a pictorial expression of the fact that in real

life opposite concepts, experiences, forces, etc.,
not only depend on each other for their own
existence, but actually merge into each other
through the passage of time. This is why the two
halves are shaped in the form of teardrops,
connoting movement. Moreover, at the very
center of the large part of each "teardrop" we find
the opposite force. This, like the arrow on each
axis of the 2LAR cross, represents
Figure
V.6: The
2LAR
Implicit in the Tai Chi
the way opposites converge upon each other.

We saw in Lecture 12 that this tendency of opposites to be "the same", as
Heraclitus put it, is actually the proper subject of synthetic, not analytic,
logic. So I would now like to explore how to use the Geometry of Logic to
construct accurate pictures of logically synthetic relations. Like analytic
logic, synthetic logic also starts from a point, but the point is now regarded
as already containing within itself a pair of opposites.
Why?Becausesyntheticlogicisbasednotonthelawsofidentityandnon?/i>contr
but on the laws of nonidentity (AA) and contradiction (A=-A). Hence, in
order to picture its extension, we must draw a line not in one direction,
(from A to -A), but in two (from x to A and -A simultaneously). Thus the
geometrical figure best representing this "simple" or"firstlevel"syntheticrelation(abbreviated"1LSR")isatriangle.This threefold
process can refer either to the original synthetic division of a nonidentical
point into two opposites or to the synthetic integration of two opposites
into a new whole (cf. Figures I.4 and I.2), as shown in Figure V.7. Ordinarily,
whenever we are working with only a single triangle, it is best to use an "x"
sign to represent the third term in a synthetic relation. For this third term is
in a sense an "unknown" that arises out of the two "known" terms, "+" and
"-", preserving what is essentialineach,yetgoingbeyondthem both. However,
when these two
14 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
(a) The Original Synthesis(b) The Final Synthesis

Figure V.7: The Triangle as a Map of a 1LSR
types of synthetic triangle are pictured together (cf. Figures III.2 and V.7),
the best way to depict the overall logical form is to label the original
synthetic term with a "0", to represent its function as the common source of
the two opposites, while labeling the concluding synthetic term with a "1",
to represent its function as the final reunification of the two estranged
opposites.
Another way of mapping a 1LSR is to use the circle given in Figure V.2a,
labeling the circumference with an "x". This is appropriate because the
boundary participates in both the outside and the inside of the circle, just as
"x" participates in both "+" and "-". Whenever we use a circle as a logical
map, the concept labeling the circumference ought therefore to fulfill a
synthetic function in relation to the two opposite concepts it separates.
However, synthetic logic, like analytic logic, also has higher levels of
relations; and the triangle has a more natural application to these higher
relations than the circle, so I'll treat the former as the standard 1LSR map.
The second level of synthetic relation (2SLR) can be constructed by
regarding each of the three terms, "+", "-", and "x", as generating its own
synthetic relation. This gives rise to the nine components of a 2SLR:
++-+x+
+---x+x-xxx
15 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
A good map for a 2SLR is a nine-pointed star, composed of a set of three

intersecting triangles, though there are other possibilities as well. For our
present purposes, we need not go into the details of these higher-level
synthetic relations. Instead, it will be enough merely to point out that the
formula governing the patterns that will appear on each level is:
C = 3t
where "C" refers once again to the total number of different components
possible and "t" refers both to the number of different terms and to the
number of the level. I hope you will experiment with some of these higher
levels on your own.
Mapping the regularity of higher-level logical relations, as illustrated in
Figure V.5, is more appropriate to analytic relations than to synthetic
relations. This is because analytic relations are produced by dividing
wholes into discreet parts, whereas synthetic relations are produced by
integrating parts to produce larger wholes. Because these new wholes
combine opposites together in typically mysterious ways, the higher-levels
tend to produce complex networks of relations that appear to be chaotic.
Instead of mapping an example of such a higher-level synthetic relation
here, I shall therefore discuss how synthetic logic can shed new light on one
of the most interesting developments in science during the last quarter of
the twentieth century. "Chaos Theory", also called "non-linear dynamics", is
a rather surprising new area of mathematical physics that has great
potential to explain some of the most mysterious aspects of human life. The
theory claims, in a nutshell, that order comes out of chaos: when we observe
whole systems, the parts seem to have haphazard relations with each other,
yet on lower levels, the same system can exhibit a high degree of order. The
typical illustration of the long-range effect chaos can have on the world is
the claim that "the flapping of a butterfly's wings in New York may cause
the weather to change in Hong Kong". How can this be true, when there is
no observable cause-and-effect relation between the two? I believe the
answer lies in regarding chaos as a higher-level synthetic relation. In this
case, the "cause" being referred to here must not be interpreted as an
ordinary cause of the sort that can be understood through analytic logic.
Rather, it is like the mutual interaction between a huge collection of
16 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
interwoven 1LSR triangles, whose combined syntheses are not subject to

precise analysis.
A good reason for not spending more time examining higher-level synthetic
relations is that the 1LSR has another application that is easier to map and
so also, more useful to philosophy. For, just as we saw in Lecture 11 that
analysis and synthesis are best regarded as complementary functions, so
also analytic and synthetic logic have their most profound applications in
the Geometry of Logic when they are joined together in a single map. The
simplest way of doing this is to combine a 1LARwitha1LSR,byputting
together two intersecting triangles to form
17 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
a "star of David". The six components (2x3 = 6) Figure V.8: The Star
of the resulting "sixfold compound relation" (or of David as a 6CR
"6CR") can be placed on such a map in the
manner shown in Figure V.8, with the first term
in each component representing the analytic
opposition between the two triangles. This
figure can be constructed by sliding together
the two triangles in Figure V.7, then rotating the
entire figure counter-clockwise by 30? The 0
and 1 vertices become the -x and +x,
respectively.
This map can be used to explore the logical relationships between any two
sets of three concepts we believe might be related in this way. For example,
one of my students once came up with the idea of comparing the famous
philosophical triad, "truth, goodness, and beauty" with the famous religious
triad, "faith, hope, and love". The way to test whether or not these six
concepts make up a legitimate 6CR is to find a way of mapping them onto
the diagram in Figure V.8, such that the concepts placed in opposition to
each other really do have characteristics that make them complementary
opposites. We could begin this task by associating the "-" triangle with the
philosophical concepts and the "+" triangle with the religious concepts, thus
defining the basic 1LAR. But once again, I prefer to let you experiment for
yourself with the other details, or with other examples of your own making.
Another way of integrating analytic and synthetic relations is to combine
the simple 1LSR with a 2LAR. The twelve components (3x4 = 12) of the
resulting "twelvefold compound relation" (or "12CR") can,of course,be
mapped onto a twelve-pointed star;but I think a better way is
simplytomapthemontoacircle,especiallysincethemapthenresembles the
familiar figure of the face of a clock. In addition, by using a circle, we can
leave the center open, to be filled in with whatever figure represents the
18 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
specific set of logical relations we wish to highlight among the many that
exist between the twelve components. For example, in Figure
V.9,Ihaveplacedacrossinsidethecircle,thusdividingit into its four
19 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
main (2LAR) quadrants. However, we could

also use a line, a triangle, a square, or
combinations of these, to highlight other
logical relations implicit within this map.
What use is a complex map like this? One
obvious point is that
FigureV.9coincidesexactlywiththe traditional
signs of the zodiac, which are divided into four
groups of three in exactly the same way. But
even apart from the light it might shed on the
rational origin of such ancient
"wisdom",generallyscoffedatby
Figure V.9: The Circle

as a Map for a 12CR
philosophers nowadays, we can find 12CRs operating in many diverse areas

of human life and thought. Why, for instance, do we divide the year into
twelve months (four seasons, each with three months)? Or the day into
twelve hours? It's easy to pass off such facts as merely arbitrary
conventions. But perhaps they have their origin in the very structure of
rational thinking! This was Kant's conviction; for, as we saw in Lecture 8,
his list of twelve categories fits the same pattern of four sets of three (see
Figure III.9). Furthermore, as I have argued in Kant's System of
Perspectives, Kant also used the same twelvefold pattern in constructing
the arguments that compose his Critical systems-indeed, this pattern is the
basic form of his "architectonic plan".
Other academic disciplines have no shortage of twelvefold distinctions with
exactly the same structure. A famous scientist named Maxwell, for example,
discovered in the nineteenth century that there are twelve distinct forms of
electromagnetic forces, and that they can be grouped into four sets of three
types. More recently, quantum physicists have discovered exactly twelve
20 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
different types of "quarks", the basic building block of matter. Numerous

examples like these could be cited. But a detailed explanation of how such
applications of the 12CR actually operate is beyond the scope of this
introductory course. Instead, we shall turn our attention in the next lecture
back to synthetic logic itself, in order to gain a better understanding of how
it operates and of how the Geometry of Logic facilitates the process of
having new insights by providing visual representations of the new
perspectives synthetic logic provides.
15. Mapping Insights onto New Perspectives
The main function of synthetic logic is to shock us into seeing new
perspectives. Once we realize this, it becomes easier to understand how it is
possible for a proposition to be meaningful even though it breaks the law of
noncontradiction. The explanation is that such propositions do not actually
break Aristotle's law in its strictest sense. Aristotle himself recognized that
"A" could be identical with "-A" if the "A" in question is being viewed from
two different perspectives. That is why in defining this law he added "at the
same time, in the same respect" to the words "A thing cannot both be and not
be". Things change in time, and they can be described differently when
looked at in different ways, so in these cases the A-A law does not hold. But
most of us find it quite difficult to look at a familiar subject in a new way.
What synthetic logic does is to bring us face to face with an exceptional way
of thinking about or looking at a familiar subject; and in so doing, it fires our
imagination with insight.
This is where synthetic logic and the Geometry of Logic share a common
function. For both are instrumental in providing us with the means to
develop our capacity to see old issues in new ways, and in so doing, to
deepen our insight into whatever is perplexing us. Indeed, taken together,
these two logical tools probably constitute philosophy's most useful
practical application. For as we shall see, a clear understanding of these
tools can assist you in thinking and writing more clearly and more
insightfully in virtually any area, not just when dealing with philosophical
issues. Let us therefore look first at synthetic logic on its own, and then
move from there into a discussion of how geometrical maps can be used in a
similar way to promote clarity and insight.
21 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Syntheticlogichas,infact,alreadybeenusedbysomephilosophers to show
how new insights come about. For instance, the perplexing contradictions
of Chuang Tzu and the string of negations proposed by Pseudo-Dionysius
(see Lecture 12) can be regarded as a way of prodding the reader to discover
new insights about "the Way" or about "God", respectively. Likewise, this is
the most fruitful way of interpreting Hegel's famous "dialectical" logic (see
Figure IV.7): his idea that changes occur in human history whenever two
opposite forces clash and give rise to a new reality, called the "synthesis", is
best regarded as a description of the process whereby human perspectives
change. And whenever our perspective changes, a new insight normally
accompanies the change. But unfortunately, Hegel's language is so complex,
and his arguments so difficult to follow, that many people end up with more
confusion than insight after reading one of his books. So a better approach
for our purposes will be to look at a contemporary scholar who has
developed some ways of applying synthetic logic on a very down-to-earth
level.
EdwarddeBono(1933-)isnotsomuchaprofessionalphilosopherasaneducator
par excellence. Nevertheless, some of the principles he discusses in his
many books are closely related to various philosophical concerns,
especially in the area of logic. For his main concern is to teach people how
to think creatively. In the process of doing so, he demonstrates that the laws
of synthetic logic are not just abstract principles that are difficult or
impossible to apply, but are effective tools that can be used to help us solve
many different sorts of real-life problems. In his book, The Use of Lateral
Thinking, for example, de Bono uses geometrical terms to distinguish
between our ordinary, "horizontal" way of thinking and the "lateral"
thinking that always seeks to look at old situations from new perspectives.
(Obviously, the former corresponds to analytic logic and the latter to
synthetic logic, though de Bono does not use these terms.) He suggests that
whenever we have the feeling we are "stuck" with a problem we cannot
solve, the reason is not that there is no solution in sight, but that our
perspective is too narrow. That is why it often helps in such situations to
take a short break from our efforts: when we return, we are more likely to
feel free to change the way we are looking at the problem; and often we
discover that the solution was right under our nose all along!
22 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Let me illustrate lateral thinking with a personal story. When I was a boy I
used to have a great deal of trouble eating chicken with a fork and knife. I
always preferred to use my fingers. When I noticed one day how easily my
grandfather ate chicken with a fork and knife, I asked him how he
performed this difficult task with such ease. His answer was simple: "You
are trying to remove the chicken from the bone; what you need to do is to
remove the bone from the chicken." This is lateral thinking! And it worked:
all along the bones had been disturbing my enjoyment of one of my favorite
foods; but when I changed the way I thought about my task, the disturbance
virtually vanished! It is also an example of using synthetic logic, because my
grandfather's suggestion enabled me to pass beyond what seemed before
like an absolute opposition between "It is easy to get the chicken off the
bone when I use my fingers" and "It is difficult to get the chicken off the
bone when I use a fork and knife". The new perspective, "remove the bone
from the chicken" enabled me to synthesize the "It is easy" of the first
proposition with the "use a fork and knife" of the second proposition.
Lateral thinking always cuts across our former way of thinking in just this
way, much as the vertical axis of a cross cuts across the horizontal axis.
In another book, called Po: Beyond Yes and No, de Bono suggests another
tool for making new discoveries. As the very title reveals, this new tool is
rooted in synthetic logic even more obviously than lateral thinking. In this
book de Bono coins a new word, "po", as a way of responding to questions
whose proper answer is neither "yes" nor "no" (or both "yes" and "no"). The
letters "P-O", he POints out, are found together in many words that play an
imPOrtant role in creative thinking, such as "hyPOthesis", "POetry",
"POssibility", "POtential", "POsitive thinking", and "supPOse". "PO" can also
be regarded as an acronym, an abbreviation of the phrase "Presuppose the
Opposite". In order to show how this new word can actually help us develop
our ability to gain new insights-i.e., to see new POssibilities, new
opPOrtunities, just over the horizon of our present perspective-de Bono
suggests we experiment with various "po situations". To perform such an
experiment, we must use "po" as an adjective, modifying a word we wish to
think about creatively; but our description of the characteristics of that
word must then presuppose the opposite of whatever we normally think
about the objects, activities, or situations related to the word. If we think
about how things would be different if this po situation were really the case,
23 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
de Bono assures us that gaining new insights will become much easier.
Let's give this kind of experiment a try. Imagine I am dissatisfied with my
teachingmethod,andIwanttothinkofsomenew,creativewayofteaching my
classes. In order to treat this as a po situation, I must say to myself "Po
teachers are...", and complete the sentence with something that is usually
not true about real life teachers. What shall we say? How about: "Po
teachers know less than their students." This is just a random choice of one
among many of the characteristics of the student-teacher relationship. But
we do normally assume that teachers know more than their students, so the
above statement, by intentionally contradicting this common assumption,
can serve as a good example of a po situation. What would happen if
students really did know more than their students? Well, for one thing, if I
were assigned the task of teaching in such a situation, I would approach my
task with humility (if not with fear and trembling!), knowing that I would
probably be learning much more than my students. As a result I would
certainly need to respect my students, and the common expectation that
students ought to look up to me as their teacher would not be so obviously
justified. Moreover, I would try to encourage students themselves to talk
more, either by asking them questions in class, by having them ask me
questions, or by dividing them into groups and having them talk with each
other. For, since po students know best what the subject is all about, a po
teacher would be very foolish not to give them ample opportunity to share
what they know.
If I now step back from this po situation, and re-enter the "real world", I
find I have stumbled upon several new ideas about how I can improve my
teaching: I should be humble enough to learn from my students, respect
them as equals in the adventure of learning, not be upset if they show some
disrespect toward me, encourage them to ask and answer questions, and
give them opportunities to discuss issues among themselves. The first time
I gave this lecture, I had not prepared these insights beforehand: they just
came to me as I was experimenting with de Bono's method in front of the
class. Yet I think these are really very good insights, don't you? If so, it is
important to remember that they did
notcometomebecauseIamespeciallyclever;theycamebecauseIused po to
think laterally, thus leading me to adopt a surprising new perspective on a
24 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
familiar subject. You can prove this for yourself simply by using the same
method to reflect on any area you wish to improve or any topic
youneedtoviewwithfreshinsight.Justremember:pothinkingstimulates
insights because it causes us intentionally to adopt a perspective we know
is contradictory to the real situation-a practical application of synthetic
logic if ever there was one!
I hope the foregoing examples have helped you see the great value -indeed,
the necessity-of using synthetic logic. I'm confident that they have, because
over the years I've noticed that beginning philosophy students often find it
easier to grasp synthetic logic than do professional philosophers! This, no
doubt, is partly because western philosophers are often taught to have a
prejudice in favor of the exclusive validity of analytic logic. In some
traditions logic is defined as "analysis"; so of course, anyone who tries to
propose a nonanalytic logic is regarded as speaking nonsense!
Nevertheless, as we have seen, synthetic logic exhibits patterns just as
much as analytic logic; so if we define logic as "patterns of words", then
synthetic and analytic logic clearly ought to have an equal right to be called
"logic". (Philosophers trained in eastern ways of thinking, incidentally,
sometimes develop a prejudice in favor of synthetic logic; in the end this is
no better than the western prejudice. A "good" philosopher will be able to
appreciate the value of using both.) Perhaps another reason beginners can
accept synthetic logic so easily is that it actually requires less formal
training to use synthetic logic than
analyticlogic:whereasanalyticlogicisthelogicofknowledge(especially
thinking), synthetic logic is the logic of experience (especially intuiting). In
this sense, we can call synthetic logic the logic of life.
Ifyouarereadingthisasastudent,yourlifeislikelytobefocused largely on
studying, writing papers, and taking tests. With this in mind, I shall devote
the rest of this lecture to suggesting how an awareness of perspectives can
be an aid to improving your writing skills-a topic that should interest all
readers, especially those writing insight papers. We have already seen that
insights tend to arise when we learn to shift our perspective (as in lateral
and po thinking) and that synthetic logic is the logic that governs such
changes; we shall now proceed to examine how an ability to map our
perspectives according to the principles of the Geometry of Logic can
25 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
improve our receptivity to insight still further.

First, let me warn you that before you actually use a logical map in a paper
or essay, you should carefully assess whether the reader(s) will be receptive
to thinking in pictures. Some people have a natural preference for this type
of thinking, while others seem to be virtually incapable of understanding it.
My own doctoral dissertation at Oxford was initially rejected because one
of my examiners had an allergic reaction to my use of diagrams. He claimed
my thesis contained "publishable material", but not as long as it was filled
with diagrams based on the Geometry of Logic. Ironically, the chapter
where I defended my use of diagrams (Chapter III of KSP) had at that time
already been accepted for publication in a very reputable professional
journal! Nevertheless, I had to rewrite my dissertation, removing the
diagrams, before it was deemed acceptable by that examiner. This
illustrates that a person's response to a diagram may have more to do with
his or her bias (e.g., an unquestioned myth about what an academic thesis
should look like) than with any rationally justifiable objection to pictorial
thinking. If you think your reader(s) might have such a bias, you can still
use diagrams to help organize your thinking and stimulate insights; but it
would be wise not to include your diagrams in the final version of your
essay. But if your teacher likes using diagrams or at least has an open mind
about such things, including the actual diagram can be an impressive way of
making a good essay even better.
The most basic use for a logical map is in outlining the overall flow of your
essay, just as I did for this book in Figure I.1. What you may not have noticed
is that the 2LAR map provides a pattern that can serve as a universal guide
for constructing a clear and complete argument. In its simplest application,
as shown in Figure V.10, the pure components (--and++)standforthe
Introductory and Concluding parts
26 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Figure V.10: The Four Parts of an Organized Essay

of your essay. In a well-organized essay these will not be mere "before and
after" summaries of what is contained in the other parts. Rather, a good
introduction sketches out the basic limiting conditions on the topic, just as
"recognition of ignorance" did for this course. Likewise, a good conclusion
leaves the reader with clear and interesting practical applications and/or
ideas for future research. As we shall see in Part Four, the "wonder of
silence" will do just that for our study of philosophy. The impure
components (+- and -+), by contrast, will present two opposite perspectives
on the topic at hand. In our case, thinking (logic) and doing (wisdom) are
the two opposites that occupy our attention in Parts Two and Three.
Viewing these opposites as two perspectives can lead to an especially
insightful essay in cases where the views examined in these two parts tend
to be regarded as competing theories or approaches. If you can effectively
demonstrate how the two are actually compatible and/or give a clear
account of why certain incompatibilities are unavoidable, you will be well
on your way to writing an impressive piece.
Having a predetermined plan for the format of what you intend to write may
seem at first like an illegitimate procedure: since the real world is not so
neatly divided, how can we know in advance whether the topic will actually
fit into such a neat, logical pattern? Kant would reply that such a question
ignores the fact that reason itself has an essentially architectonic nature.
That is, our thinking is (or ought to be!) orderly and patterned, so in any
essay that involves rational thinking, that order ought not to be left to
chance. Of course, the content of any essay cannot be predetermined in this
way. But if the essay is one that can benefit by being written in a clear and
orderly way, then selecting a pattern as common as the 2LAR will virtually
guarantee an increase in its level of clarity and persuasiveness. Some essays
may be so detailed that they will require a more complex pattern, such as
the 12CR used in organizing
27 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
thiscourse(anditssequel,DW,aswellasKSPandKCR).Thealternative
approach, adopted by most writers even of highly abstract philosophical
essays, is simply to divide the essay into a haphazard number of sections
without following any rule. Yet this leaves the reader totally clueless as to
why the essay is divided up in just this way, and not some other.
By far the greatest benefit that comes from using the Geometry of Logic to
pre-plan a piece of writing is that doing so calls attention to gaps and
previously undetected connections between the various themes being
considered. In the first two lectures this week, I gave several examples of
how geometrical maps can be used to help promote insights. (Remember
the rainbow?) The potential for giving other such examples is so great that I
could easily fill a whole book with them! But for our purposes it will be
enough to provide one more example to illustrate how a map can assist us in
deepening our insight by discovering a new perspective on an old, familiar
topic.
When I was preparing the present edition of this book, I had taught
Introduction to Philosophy more than thirty times, always using something
like Figures I.1 and I.3 on the first day as a preview of what students could
expect. Then one day after a Philosophy Cafe meeting here in Hong Kong, I
was discussing the nature of silence with one of the participants. Suddenly
as I spoke I realized that Parts Two and Four of this course can be described
as the two ways human beings experience meaning. The word "meaning"
can therefore label the vertical pole on Figure I.3. As I went home that night,
this image of the labeled vertical pole caused me to wonder: How, then,
should the horizontal pole be labeled? Had I not organized this course using
the Geometry of Logic, this question would surely never have arisen. But it
now became so obvious that I was amazed I had never in 13 years thought of
this issue! For several weeks I reflected on this matter without coming up
with an answer. Then, in a conversation with a former student, I finally sat
down and drew the diagram. Seeing the horizontal pole with "ignorance" on
one end and "knowledge" on the other stimulated me all in a flash to think of
two good answers: Parts One and Three both deal with reality, but from two
different perspectives (ultimate and non-ultimate); but a more natural way
of contrasting this with "meaning" is to refer to it as "existence". My new
insight was now complete: the overall aim of this course is to share a vision
28 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
of what it means to exist.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT/DIALOGUE

1.A. How would you map a compound relation higher than a 12CR?
B. Could there be a half-level of analytic division (e.g., a 11/2LAR)?
2.A. Could a cross be used to map a synthetic relation?
B. Could a triangle be used to map an analytic relation?
3.A. Could "x" and "+" (or "x" and "-") be synthesized?
B. Are there really any magic numbers?
4.A. What would po lateral thinking be like?
B. Is it possible to have an insight that could never be mapped?
RECOMMENDED READINGS
1. George Boole, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are
Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities (London:
Dover Publications, 1854).
2. Stephen Palmquist, Kant's System of Perspectives, Ch. III, "The
Architectonic Form of Kant's Copernican System" (KSP 67-103).
3. Stephen Palmquist, The Geometry of Logic (unpublished; working draft
available at http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/gl/toc.html).
4. Underwood Dudley, Numerology: Or, what Pythagoras wrought
(Washington D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America, 1997), Ch.2,
"Pythagoras", pp.5-16.
5. Robert Lawlor, Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and practice (London:
29 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50
Thames and Hudson, 1982).

6. Edward de Bono, The Use of Lateral Thinking (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1967).
7. Edward de Bono, Po: Beyond yes and no (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin Books, 1972).
8. Jonathan W. Schooler, Marte Fallshore, and Stephen M. Fiore, "Putting
Insight into Perspective", Epilogue in R.J. Sternberg and J.E. Davidson (ed.),
The Nature of Insight (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), pp.559-587.
border=0 height=62 width=88>
Original URL:
http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/tp4/top05.html
30 de 30
15/12/2015 20:50

PALMQUIST - Tree.13.13. Mapping Analytic Relations

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PALMQUIST - Tree.13.13. Mapping Analytic Relations

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

D1 staweb.hkbu.edu.

13. Mapping Analytic Relations

cally, a point exists merely as a single position, with no

Figure V.1: The Point as a Map of

The function of the law of noncontradiction is to contrast the solitary "A" of

(a) The Circle(b) The Line

(a) The Cross(b) The Square

components could be arranged in a number of different ways and still

it can represent the relationships between complementary opposites.

(a) Four Parts of a Day(b) Four Weather Conditions

Figure V.5: A Map of the 6LAR in the I Ching

as a pictorial expression of the fact that in real

Implicit in the Tai Chi

the way opposites converge upon each other.

(a) The Original Synthesis(b) The Final Synthesis

A good map for a 2SLR is a nine-pointed star, composed of a set of three

interwoven 1LSR triangles, whose combined syntheses are not subject to

main (2LAR) quadrants. However, we could

Figure V.9: The Circle

philosophers nowadays, we can find 12CRs operating in many diverse areas

different types of "quarks", the basic building block of matter. Numerous

improve our receptivity to insight still further.

Figure V.10: The Four Parts of an Organized Essay

of what it means to exist.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT/DIALOGUE

Thames and Hudson, 1982).

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen