Partial Application: Curry Meets Peirce

Look, not to give a mixed signal
The rap game got more toys than Kris Kringle
And he’s fake, yer ears is not deceiving
I can’t believe my eyeballs no more than Steveland
No wonder

• MF DOOM

Partial application is sometimes incorrectly called currying, which is a related, but distinct concept.

Philosophy for a long time has been concerned with creating a system that can criticize itself.

This itself is such a system. Mind you, your mind assimilates. Careful who you heed.

Creating a system, we process it by first turning our focus to Thales.

The hailed founder of western thought is not valued as a mathematician but a proto-physicist.

Math and physics are well known as the most abstract mode of thought that can be respected. Just missing the mark, beyond the pale, we find philosophy. Wave at it while we pass by.

Math and physics can be compared and contrasted by centralizing their themes around economic-topology. We start with a world as is.

For every action within the the world as is, we get a world after-as-is.

We measure action by comparing/criticizing as is and after-as-is.

There’s a topology between as is and after-as-is. The significance in understanding the topological nature is that any change in the world is a continuing change.

The economic between as is and after-as-is — Topology is finite and mathematically friendly. But it wasn’t enough for Thales to be crowned. Ironically and appropriate for this discussion, the reason for the coronation was found in the economical aspect of Thales’ thinking. The economical difference between math and physics is that physics deals with value systems that are topologically permanently and connected with the world as is.

Going back to the previously established equation, for every action within the the world as is, we get a world after-as-is. Physics measures action by comparing/criticizing as is and after-as-is. The concern for physics is objectifying action to the world as is. Theoretically, by objectifying the world as is with action, the after-as-is becomes trivial.

This is what made Thales such a spectacle. Objectifying as is with theory. Theory that motivated action. Regardless of the world after-as-is.

Incidentally, this significance is found in Kant’s categorical imperative.

The significance of Thales is the attempt to formalize as is without reference to after-as-is. Rather, the mere relationship between as is and action (or theory) will reveal the world after-as-is to be as is. Between as is and action, there is a continuum because the action/theory is a system that becomes inseparable what as is. There is no possibility of comparing and contrasting as is and after-as-is when the action is indistinguishable from the world as is.

An example of the opposite of what Thales did is a mystic saying that a certain witchcraft caused rain in the afternoon. The world as is and the world after-as-is become detached from action (including theory). Action is contrasted, measured by its influence within as is. In this sense, action is separate from as is if action doesn’t participate as a system that accounts for itself within as is. The self is outside the world as is.

The self being outside the world as is isn’t theory. It’s a partial application.

Again, we create a system that incorporates the world as is without a contrasting action. Rather, we create a system that incorporates the world as is via a self-aware action. The self-aware action creates a mirror-like polish. We see the world as is as is.

Partial application itself is an action whose value can be contrasted or self-aware. We can isolate what partial application is by contrasting it with the as is and after-as-is, but we can also introduce partial application as self-aware system within the as is.

For example. You see two apples on a table. You could eat the apples. You could share the apples. You could draw the apples. You can analyze the apples as being a pair or there being two of them or there being less than three but more than one. You can analyze the economical aspect of apples or their topological significance. There’s a lot of applications you can use the apple for. To choose one application over other results in a partial application. You could have drawn the apples but instead you ate them.

Here we have two systems: draw and eat. None of them promise self-awareness. Only a world after-as-is. Instinctually, we have a component for self-awareness in our natural process as living beings. Even if we don’t “actively” use our self-awareness for any end, we experience it. But we can’t experience self-awareness as self-awareness while contrasting self-awareness from what is.

The question is, how can we create a system that incorporates our self-awareness as an unfurling of the self rather than a contrast from what is? This question is important because most people focus on the second part. We measure our movements based on contrast rather than a prediction. The contrast validates the prediction without scrutinizing the prediction. The unfurling self criticizes prediction as separate from the self rather than equating the self with the outcomes.