note: press F11 to maximize browser window

note: press ⇧⌘F to maximize browser window

previous | | **1.9.2** (85) | contents

While Historians-of-Mathematics antedate *formulae *and *proofs*, from years (Boole to Peirce) to centuries (Borda to Lull), *graphs* and *schemas* prove a spot of bother. While an odd Oxfordian still mistakes Bruno for Harry Potter (if not Dee), Wildgen cuts to the chase: “*Bruno’s parallel work on cosmology and **artificial** **memory** [formed] a new model of semantic fields which was so radical in its time that the first modern followers (although ignorant of this tradition) are the Von-Neumann automata and neural net systems*.”—and, more plain to the eye, the diagrams of Venn (Euler), Hasse (Vogt) *et al*. Being *technologists*, not *historians*, we defer to sharper quills—to wit, Eco 1994: *“Lull [reiterates] that if **metaphysics** considers things as they exist outside our minds*,”* *(i.e. schematic *ontology*, not ‘New Age’ astro-magick frippery)* “and if **logic** treats them in their mental being, the art can treat them from both points of view [hence] to more secure conclusions than logic alone, *‘[thus] the artist of this art can learn more in a month than a logician can in a year’*. What this audacious claim reveals, however, is that, contrary to what some later supposed, Lull’s art is not really a formal method.”*

index | ** 1.9.3** (86) | | next

*fig.70—Lull’s “cognates” | our media mix | Lull’s “dissonants”*

—if not *formal*, then *how* is it? Unlike Bruno’s figurae, Lull’s* *combinatoires are *mechanically* transparent—even if both are *theoretically* opaque. Lull married topological diagrams to lexical tables by strict vows, lest “the virtuous student” dial up dastardly queries like ‘*Will** **full** **extension** of **God’s Glory **end** in **eternal** **privation**?’ Yikes! *In more practical terms: in 1679, by divorcing notational* **form* from denoted* **content*, Leibniz surmised that “*all derived concepts originate from the combinations of primary ones, and those further compounded from the combination of the compounded; but care must be taken, lest useless combinations be made by joining together things that are incompatible with one another.*” Nevertheless, we sample a ninefold of concepts from Lull’s *Ars Infusa* as filed under *Æqualitas*. As we no longer fear the Church will hang us by the thumbnails, we may contemplate terms of *mediation*: while armed to the lexical teeth, we still need to slice *ad verba* every “Universe of Discourse” (Boole) from Orthodoxy to Hydrodynamics to post-Nietzscheism.

previous | | **1.9.2** (85) | contents | index | next

While Historians-of-Mathematics antedate *formulae *and *proofs*, from years (Boole to Peirce) to centuries (Borda to Lull), *graphs* and *schemas* prove a spot of bother. While an odd Oxfordian still mistakes Bruno for Harry Potter (if not Dee), Wildgen cuts to the chase: “*Bruno’s parallel work on cosmology and **artificial** **memory** [formed] a new model of semantic fields which was so radical in its time that the first modern followers (although ignorant of this tradition) are the Von-Neumann automata and neural net systems*.”—and, more plain to the eye, the diagrams of Venn (Euler), Hasse (Vogt) *et al*. Being *technologists*, not *historians*, we defer to sharper quills—to wit, Eco 1994: *“Lull [reiterates] that if **metaphysics** considers things as they exist outside our minds*,”* *(i.e. schematic *ontology*, not ‘New Age’ astro-magick frippery)* “and if **logic** treats them in their mental being, the art can treat them from both points of view [hence] to more secure conclusions than logic alone, *‘[thus] the artist of this art can learn more in a month than a logician can in a year’*. What this audacious claim reveals, however, is that, contrary to what some later supposed, Lull’s art is not really a formal method.”*

previous | | **1.9.3** (86) | contents | index | next

*fig.70—Lull’s “cognates” | our media mix | Lull’s “dissonants”*

—if not *formal*, then *how* is it? Unlike Bruno’s figurae, Lull’s* *combinatoires are *mechanically* transparent—even if both are *theoretically* opaque. Lull married topological diagrams to lexical tables by strict vows, lest “the virtuous student” dial up dastardly queries like ‘*Will** **full** **extension** of **God’s Glory **end** in **eternal** **privation**?’ Yikes! *In more practical terms: in 1679, by divorcing notational* **form* from denoted* **content*, Leibniz surmised that “*all derived concepts originate from the combinations of primary ones, and those further compounded from the combination of the compounded; but care must be taken, lest useless combinations be made by joining together things that are incompatible with one another.*” Nevertheless, we sample a ninefold of concepts from Lull’s *Ars Infusa* as filed under *Æqualitas*. As we no longer fear the Church will hang us by the thumbnails, we may contemplate terms of *mediation*: while armed to the lexical teeth, we still need to slice *ad verba* every “Universe of Discourse” (Boole) from Orthodoxy to Hydrodynamics to post-Nietzscheism.