What of these other fours?
 Post appears BELOW Table of Contents.
 This blog focuses on similarities between others' four-folds, tetrads, tetrachotomies, and mine, and includes links to online information on others’ fours in their own terms. It results from overgrowth of an old post at The Tetrast "What of these other fours?".
Table of Contents

Fours that I've
adopted or adapted:
Fours with a striking
likeness to mine:
Fours involving some
likeness to mine:
More-or-less different fours:
Unless otherwise stated within the post, first posted on Friday, December 5, 2008. Post times here are just a device to control the order of appearance. Most of the posts are based on entries in an older post "What of These Other Fours?" at The Tetrast.
Postmodernist Tetralectics
The postmodernist Tetralectics of R. Hargitai, Ö. Farkas, L+. Ropolyi, G. Veress & Gy. Vankó — there is necessarily a correlation to my Tetrastics insofar as their Tetralectics assumes the Aristotelian four causes but, beyond that, I don’t quite know what to make of it. The orientation seems systems-theoretic. They display conceptual oppositions assembled into a tetrahedron, discuss symmetry transformations, various kinds of oppositions (vertex/face, edge/edge) etc. They discuss three levels of description — (1) standard scientific theories, (2) metatheories, and (3) tetralectics. The philosopher and information theorist John Collier has given a favorable talk "Tetralectics: Ancient and modern precursors" (here are his notes in a PDF) at the Symmetry Festival 2003 on Culture and Science. In a March 31, 2002 peirce-l message (lost from the archive and unavailable online), he links to the Hungarian group's paper and adds, "In my own work, which is unpublished, I find over and over that there is an underlying triadic symmetry to classic tetrads. The symmetry group is that of a tetrahedron. This has been a hobby of mine for over thirty years now." (He and the Hungarian group arrived at their ideas independently of each other. See Collier's Nov. 14, 2005 peirce-l mssage).
Anyway, I've looked at the “Tetralectics” paper a number of times over the past few years. It would be nice if some of the more detailed discussion which they mention became available, in particular in regard to their reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Four Causes, their mapping of theory families in physics, the discrete/continuous/global/local division, its alignment with infinite/infinite/infinite/finite, and so forth.
Tetralectics Table gathered from “Tetralectics” (authors R. Hargitai, Ö. Farkas, L+. Ropolyi, G. Veress & Gy. Vankó) at http://hps.elte.hu/~ropolyi/tetralectics.htm
Central Concept /
in a tetralectics of
natural sciences
Theory families
in physics
The Central Concepts'
Properties connected to
Central Concepts/
Properties connected to
Central Concepts/
Properties connected to
Central Concepts / Metatheories
(opposition of vertex to
the opposite triangular face)
MatterMatter (M)Corpuscularsubstrate --&-- structurestatic, closed, individualdiscrete, stochastic, disorderedequipositionalqualityrealityinfinite
FormSpace-time (S)Fieldspace --&-- timestatic, open, collectivecontinuous, homogeneous, causalhierarchicalquantityrealityinfinite
EfficiencyAction (A)Variation principlesaction --&-- interactiondynamic, open, individualglobal, deterministic, inhomogeneoushierarchicalqualitypossibilityinfinite
AimChange (C)Conservation lawstransformation --&-- equilibriumdynamic, closed, collectivelocal, teleological, orderedhierarchicalqualityrealityfinite
Post a Comment