Pattern Logic Series, Part I: Simple Limitation & Relations

13 min readOct 28, 2022

The initial article in this series on pattern logic starts with definitions that will outline an approach to the interpretation of limited meaning in patterns as found in the ADEPT LION pattern language. The terms in bold are defined by dependent terms in italics. The definitions thereby establish an interdependent formulation for pattern logic.

Simple Limitation

“Limitation” is the fundamental concept that underlies the interpretation of patterns in the first consideration of ADEPT LION. What do these patterns “in the first consideration” have to do with?… The expression of a pattern logic, which establishes a grammar for this pattern language. So we can begin by defining terms.

Figure 1: The **limited occasion** at the left is a “portion” that is “limited by” the **limiting occasion**, or “extent” on the right because of the **limitation occasion** at the center. The depth of all three occasions is unspecified but the limited occasion and the limiting occasion must be ADEPT LION **entities**. Self-referencing patterns for the Limitation occasion are permissible if it is an entity. The limitation occasion may also be an ascription, description or process based upon the **deterministic depth** of the limited and limiting occasions.

Occasion: a conceptual or material existent. An occasion is realized as a unique identity within an ADEPT LION instance of occasions. In other words, an occasion is a unique existence among an instance of many existences and it can be divided into conceptual and material varieties.
Limitation: an occasion having both thing [t] and use [u] channel inputs. The use channel input comes from the limiting occasion (extent) and the thing channel input comes from the limited occasion (portion). We see here that the definition of limitation is grounded in a particular arrangement of inputs which are called channels in ADEPT LION.
Portion: an occasion which is limited by an occasion. The portion of a limitation is the ADEPT LION entity supplying the thing channel [t] input. Portion is the first channel input for an occasion of limitation.
Extent: an occasion which limits an occasion. The extent of a limitation is the ADEPT LION entity supplying the use channel [u] input. Extent is the second channel input for an occasion of limitation.

Notice that the definitions of portion and extent do permit self-referencing input patterns for the channels.

A Catalog of Limitations

In the following catalog of limitations we account for 58 varieties that can be divided in the following ways.

ADEPT LION construct of Depth

20 varieties. An occasions of Obscure Depth is a conceptual existent without valuation. These are therefore indeterminate and indefinite, or may say “unconscious thoughts” or a first class of “logical universals”.
20 varieties. An occasions of Shadow Depth is a conceptual existent with valuation. These are therefore indeterminate and definite, or we may say “conscious thoughts” or a second class of “logical universals”.
18 varieties. An occasion of Manifest Depth is a material existent with valuation. These are therefore determinate and definite, or we may say “actual things” or “logical individuals”.

ADEPT LION construct of Pool

7 varieties: An occasion of the Ascription Pool is an existent with intrinsic perspective. These will pertain to “essential attributes”.
7 varieties. An occasion of the Description Pool is an existent with extrinsic perspective. These will pertain to “accidental attributes”.
37 varieties. An occasion of the Entity Pool is an existent with static perspective. These will pertain to “individuals” and “universals”.
7 varieties. An occasion of the Process Pool is an existent with dynamic perspective. These will pertain to “parts”.

ADEPT LION construct of Nature

20 varieties. An occasion of the Aether Nature is an existent that has iterative capacity.
28 varieties. An occasion of the Translation Nature is an existent that has symbolic representation.

ADEPT LION constructs of Rivulet (24) and Trickle (56)

Units: OEH** (One), SEH** (Unit)
Definitions: OEH*\ (Same), SEL*\ (Definition)
Containers: OEH\* (Superior), SEH\* (Container)
Identities: OEH++ (Another), OET++ (Identity), SEH++ (Tag), SET++ (Reflection)
Predications: OEH\\ (Predication), OET\\ (Ordination), SEH\\ (Inclusion), SET\\ (Relation)
Abstractions: OEH|| (Abstraction), OET|| (Assertion), SEH|| (Idea), SET|| (Conception)
Associations: OEH== (Association), OET== (Apodiction), SEH== (Equation), SET== (Recognition)
Groups: ODH\ (Explicit Range), ODT\ (Explicit Cardinal), SDH\ (Extension), SDT\ (Plural)
Individuals: OAH\ (Explicit Domain), OAT\ (Explicit Ordinal), SAH\ (Instantiation), SAT\ (Singular)
Causes: OPH (Coupling), OPT (Copulant), SPH (Parthood), SPT (Composition)
Rhemes: MEH++ (Distinct Phenomenon), MET++* (Rheme), MET++| (Seme)
Dicisigns: MEH\\ (Definite Phenomenon), MET\\* (Dicisign), MET\\| (Pheme)
Immediate Object: MEH** (Occurrent Phenomenon)
Dynamic Objects: MEH|| (Subsequent Phenomenon), MET||* (Sinsign), MET||| (Actisign)
Immediate Interpretant: MEH|* (Continuant Phenomenon)
Dynamic Interpretant: MEH*| (Replacement Phenomenon)
Final Interpretants: MEH== (Confluent Phenomenon), MET==* (Argument), MET==| (Delome)
Icons: MDH\ (Resemblance), MDT\* (Icon), MDT\| (Metaphor)
Indices: MAH\ (Designation), MAT\* (Index), MAT\| (Symptom)
Symbols: MPH (Constitution), MPT* (Symbol), MPT| (Replica)

Discussion of Limitation Varieties

The lists above represent different approaches to cataloging the patterns of limitation which we will begin to explore now. These lists only contain the patterns of the first consideration of ADEPT LION that have both a thing and a use channel input. The interpretive rubric of limitation can be applied even in the absence of one or both of these channel inputs as well. The concept of “no occasion” becomes the value of a channel without input and the interpretation proceeds accordingly. This group is called “imperfect limitations”. For now however, we can restrict our exploration to the patterns that have inputs present for both channels These are the “simple limitations”.

The depth of the limit occasion itself will be obscure, shadow or manifest which corresponds to the act of limitation being non-determinate, indeterminate, or determinate in its iterative logical effect as an input to other occasions. But setting this distinction aside for the moment, we can see that there are four basic patterns that emerge with an examination of the iterative effect of any limitation’s thing and use channel inputs.

The determinate depth of the thing and use channel inputs establish the emergence of the ADEPT LION “pool” patterns.

This is the emergence of the pattern of pools which correspond to the first four letters of the ADEPT acronym: Ascription, Description, Entity and Process.

Individuals and Universals

When we understand that the metaphysical meaning of the Depth construct is tied to the distinction between universal concepts and particular individuals, we can also understand these four basic patterns as four different types of logical relationships between universals (obscure or shadow depth entity) and individuals (manifest depth entity).

The ADEPT LION “pool” patterns correspond to four basic forms of limitation that relate universal and individual entities.

Instantiation

For the limitation called instantiation of an individual in a universal, the portion is the determinate individual entity and it is limited by the extent of an indeterminate universal entity. This limitation thus “instantiates” the individual as belonging to the “class” of the universal.

When this limitation is itself a determinate manifest ascription, then we have the designation trickle (MAH\) and when the limitation is itself indeterminate, and therefore an indeterminate shadow ascription, then we have the instantiation trickle (SAH\). A designation would be that you are an actual instance of a human. If we mean to express only the concept of “your humanity” (much as we refer to a person’s “soul”), then this would be merely an instantiation pattern.

In the second consideration where these limitations take on symbolic representations, we call the designation (MAH\) an index trickle (MAT\*) or a symptom trickle (MAT\|) and the instantiation (SAH\) we call an essence trickle (SAT\). The difference between an index and a symptom is located in the pattern of the word channel which is self-referencing for the index and other-referencing for the symptom. The effect of this difference is that an index is primitive in its ability to establish a classification of instances while a symptom is derivative, relying on some pre-existing symbol which it re-interprets and which it is “symptomatic of”.

This pattern of a self-referencing word channel is the hallmark of all manifest depth patterns in ADEPT LION, and accordingly, it is the distinctive pattern of “logical individuals”. On the other hand, the absence of a manifest depth input in the word channel is the hallmark of the obscure and shadow depth patterns in ADEPT LION and the distinctive pattern of “logical universals”.

In the obscure depth of the first and second considerations, the corollaries of instantiation and essence trickles are the explicit domain trickle (OAH\) and the explicit ordinal trickle (OAT\). The “explicit” part of these names refers to the presence of the indeterminate use channel which is the universal “class”.

Multiple Instantiations of a Universal produce Classifications.

There may be a multiplicity of entities on either side of the Instantiation of a Universal relation and this produces the means for giving multiple individuals a common universal classification as well as giving any one individual multiple universal classifications.

Extension

For the limitation called extension of a universal in an individual, the portion is the indeterminate universal entity and it is limited by the extent, which is the determinate individual entity. This limitation thus “extends” the universal through the “collection” of actual individual(s).

When this limitation is itself a determinate manifest description, then we have the resemblance trickle(MDH\) and when the limitation is itself indeterminate, and therefore an indeterminate shadow description, then we have the extension trickle (SAH\). A resemblance might be “this human” as an act of extending the concept of human to reference you. If the intent is to express only the concept of “a human” (which happens to be you), then this would be the extension pattern.

In the second consideration where these limitations take on symbolic representations, we call the resemblance (MDH\) an icon trickle (MDT\*) or a metaphor trickle (MDT\|) and the extension (SDT\) we call an accident trickle (SDT\). The difference between an icon and a metaphor is located in the pattern of the word channel which is self-referencing for the icon and other-referencing for the metaphor. The effect of this difference is that an icon is primitive in its ability to establish a collection while a metaphor is derivative, relying on some pre-existing symbol which it re-interprets and is a “metaphor of”.

In the obscure depth of the first and second considerations the corollaries of extension and accident are the explicit range trickle (ODH\) and the explicit cardinal trickle (ODT\). The “explicit” part of these names refers to the presence of the indeterminate thing channel which is the universal “collection”.

Multiple Extensions of a Universal produce Collections.

There may be a multiplicity of entities on either side of the Extension of a Universal relation and this produces the means for giving multiple individuals membership in a common universal collection as well as giving a complex membership of one individual to multiple universal collections.

Taxonomic Inclusion

For the limitation called taxonomic inclusion of universals, the portion is the indeterminate universal entity and it is limited by the extent, which is another indeterminate universal entity. This limitation thus effects the “taxonomization” in which one universal “class” is subsuming another universal “class”.

When this limitation is itself a determinate manifest entity, and therefore a logical individual, then we have the definite phenomenon trickle (MEH\\) and when the limitation is itself indeterminate, and therefore a logical universal, then we have the inclusion trickle(SEH\\). A definite phenomenon is a logical individual that is fully characterized as to its genus and species such as “this Homo sapiens”. Here, both a genus “homo” and a species “sapiens” is asserted in the pattern. You, reader are just such a definite phenomenon. The mere taxonomical combination of a genus and species to form a universal taxon such as “A Homo sapiens” would be an example of the inclusion trickle in which we are referring more generally to a compound universal concept rather than to a definite individual.

In the second consideration where these limitations take on symbolic representations, we call the definite phenomenon (MEH\\) either a dicisign trickle (MET\\*) or a pheme trickle (MET\\|) and the inclusion (SET\\) we call a relation trickle (SET\\). The difference between a dicisign and a pheme is located in the pattern of the word channel which is self-referencing for the dicisign and other-referencing for the pheme. The effect of this difference is that a dicisign is primitive in its ability to establish a taxonomical class while a pheme is derivative, relying on some pre-existing symbol which it re-interprets. The term dicisign is synonymous with “dicent sign” and is borrowed from C. S. Peirce who defined it as: “A Dicent Sign is a Sign, which, for its Interpretant, is a Sign of actual existence.” The term pheme also comes from Peirce meaning “a word regarded as a grammatical unit of language” from Greek phēmē “speech, voice, utterance, a speaking”. The product of speech is the symbolic element of the word channel, while the grammatical unit, such as a part of speech (a concept), supplies the use channel input and the word (a concept) that is being regarded supplies the thing channel input.

If this introduction of semiotics has raised more questions than answers, just know that the influence of C. S. Peirce on the naming of trickles is the focus of part V in this series of articles.

In the obscure depth of the first and second considerations the corollaries of inclusion and relation trickles are the predication trickle (OEH\\) and the ordination trickle (OET\\).

These taxonomical relations involving universal entities are generative of more universal entities and will come to be the building blocks of dialectic reasoning (logic) and provide a framework for epistemology in which we can evaluate the mechanics of thought, language, learning and knowledge.

Multiple Taxonomic Inclusions of Universals produce Unions and Overlaps of Class Hierarchies.

There may be a multiplicity of entities on either side of the Taxonomic Inclusion of Universal relation and this produces unions and overlaps which result in a branching hierarchy of sub-classes and super-classes with multiple inheritance.

Parthood

For the limitation called the parthood relation of the composition of an individual in an individual, the portion is the determinate individual entity and it is limited by the extent, which is another determinate individual entity. This limitation thus involves “parthood” as one individual is included in another individual.

When this limitation is itself a determinate manifest entity, then we have the composition trickle (MPH) and when the limitation is itself indeterminate, then we have the parthood trickle (SPH). The actuality of “your head” sitting atop your body as you read this is an example of the composition trickle pattern. My concept of “your head” as I write this would merely be an example of a parthood trickle pattern assuming that I actually am acquainted with your actual head and your body but am only considering it as an abstraction.

These Parthood Relations of Individuals are generative of ADEPT LION processes which will become the inputs for the source channel [z]. Their role is in contextualizing the occasions of the third consideration. When a process is manifest (or actually determinative), such as with a composition trickle, then the presence of this context in the source channel will result in an iterative occasion (of the ground or being natures). When a process is obscure or shadow (indeterminate), such as with a parthood trickle then the absence of context, or the presence of a merely conceptual context in the source channel will result in a non-iterative occasion (of the light nature). This “mere conceptual context” can be understood as the hallmark of what is called “data” in the realm of information science and will be an important feature as pattern logic is turned in application to the modeling of information structures like trees, grids, graphs and cycles.

The Parthood Relations between Individuals can express parts within a common whole or a part that is common to more than one whole.

Okay, so what does all of this ADEPT LION terminology really mean? It means that conceptions of mereological parts and wholes are fleeting and iteratively-limited whereas compositions of individuals that participate in ordering processes of material arrangement are more enduring in their effects.

Summary of Simple Limitation

Something really interesting emerges when we step back and gather some perspective on what has been developing as we explored these basic expressions of limitation in pattern logic. We are clearly within a deeply philosophical realm in which we are witnessing an interplay of universal concepts and individual particulars. We can begin to distinguish the boundaries between these conceptual and actual realms. Up above us we find the patterns of inclusion and the idealistic workings of taxonomy. Down below us we find the materialistic patterns of parthood and a grounding for mereology. And in between these, we see two distinctly different points of contact between the ideas above and the facts below. To our right we see universals classifying individuals as having essential attributes through acts of instantiation. To our left we witness individuals being gathered into universal collections on account of their accidental attributes.

For those familiar with the old “problem of universals” in which thinkers were encourage to pick between a Platonist assertion and a Nominalist denial of the “reality of universal concepts”, pattern logic is providing an interesting reframing of the issue. The construct of Depth in pattern logic provides a distinction between the conceptual which is logically indeterminate, and the actual (manifest depth) which is logically determinate. It further splits the conceptual half into a definite indeterminacy (shadow depth) and an indefinite indeterminacy (obscure depth) to separate concepts over which we have conscious awareness from those which we do not. Applying these three divisions of logical determinacy to entities gives us a means of distinctly grasping logical individuals (manifest entities) and logical universals (shadow and obscure entities). Then the relations of taxonomic inclusion between universals, instantiation (expressions of essential attributes), collection (expressions of accidental attributes) and even mereological composition of individuals all come into view in a unified framework of understanding as fixed patterns.

The role of language in all of this is also a distinction provided by ADEPT LION and of great interest in framing a theory of mind. The separation of universal concept and phenomena of individual experience (aether nature) from the use of language to represent them (translation nature) will also provide some useful clarity. This will be explored further on in this series through the perspective of semiotics. But in part II and III of the journey into pattern logic we will see what happens as these basic patterns of limitation begin to intermingle (compound limitation) followed by what happens when they break down (imperfect limitation).

For more on the ADEPT LION pattern language see www.patternslanguage.com.