logical archetypes

In reply to Karl's very interesting post, which I don't claim to
understand in full,...

I very much like the hypothesis that the interactions are logical. I
fully agree with this. In my view, our abiotic and biotic realms
operate 'as logical orders'. My question concerns the nature of this
logical interaction.

Karl seems to be dealing with, if I understand him, aggregates of
discrete entities. That would be the Gaussian distribution. This
assumes that these physical variables already exist - and the
archetype is an a posteriori description, a statistical average of the
many actualities (hair, skin, eye colour etc). But is this a posteriori
statistical average what is really meant by a logical archetype?

Karl introduces the idea of asymmetry and this, I think, is
important, for asymmetry inserts gradients of organization and
therefore, establishes interactions between these gradients.
Gradients develop within logical structures - and - the relations
between these gradients is also logical. This precludes random
interactions as the key force in our cosmos, moving randomness
(which does exist and remains vital) to the peripheral domain.

Logical relations establish structures that set up relations of
precedence and dominance. It is not just sets and subsets but the
principles of interaction that both set up these sets/subsets and
also, establish the relations between them. These principles are
logical. Key aspects of the logical interaction, I think, are codes
that define temporality, so that an earlier form is dominant over a
later form (this is an indexical logical relation); and type of code, so
that digital (non-local, distributed) is dominant over an analog
(situated, undistributed) codification.

The archetype that I am thinking of would not be viewed as an a
posteriori statistical distribution but as an a priori digital type of
codification. It would set up energy interactions that produce
discrete particles, according to its dominance and precedence in
structure. Now- this seems to be a different type of archetype than
Karl's. I consider Karl's archetype an important one - which I would
call an 'external Thirdness' and the one I am outlining, is an
'internal Thirdness'. My suggestion is that our world requires both
types. And - the external archetype or 'normative habit' is not just
an a posteriori distribution figured out by humans. It exists in reality.
Same with the internal one. [That is, I think that 'universals' are
real].

Regards,

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone:(819)822.9600 Ext.2424
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7
Received on Wed Oct 9 15:31:36 2002