Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAlain Connes brought out a book containing a dialogue with psychoanalyst Patrick Gauthier-Lafaye called [À l’ombre de Grothendieck et de Lacan](https://google.co.uk/books/edition/%C3%80_l_ombre_de_Grothendieck_et_de_Lacan/3cBvEAAAQBAJ?hl=en). Developing Lacan's 'The unconscious is structured like a language', the thesis of the book is > The unconscious is structured like a topos. I found the book very light on details. Attention is given to the idea of a classifying topos for a geometric theory encoding what Lacan calls the fundamental fantasy. Surprisingly, there's nothing on the dynamics of therapy, which in this story ought to correspond to modifying the topos/refining the theory. That got me wondering outside of anything psychoanalytic how to get the classifying topos concept to relate to [[Aufhebung]], [[level of a topos]], etc. Whenever we have some resolution of an opposition, should we be able to describe it via theory extension? This from [[Aufhebung]] suggests so > We can think of the inclusion of the sheaf category of a lower level into the higher sheaf category as an _analytic_ relation between the concepts involved: when viewed as a relation between the [[geometric theories]] classified by the respective subtoposes an inclusion relation corresponds indeed to an unpacking of the richer theory of the smaller subtopos e.g. the subtopos corresponding to the theory of [[local ring|local rings]] is included in the topos corresponding to the theory of rings which on the conceptual side is spelled out as _a local ring is a ring_, or, the concept 'local ring' implies the concept 'ring'. So the passage from subtopos to including supratopos corresponds to an unfolding of the concepts implied in the subtopos concept. So if $\empty\dashv \ast$ corresponds to the inconsistent geometric theory. what should we say for $\flat\dashv \sharp$?

   Alain Connes brought out a book containing a dialogue with psychoanalyst Patrick Gauthier-Lafaye called À l’ombre de Grothendieck et de Lacan. Developing Lacan’s ’The unconscious is structured like a language’, the thesis of the book is

   The unconscious is structured like a topos.

   I found the book very light on details. Attention is given to the idea of a classifying topos for a geometric theory encoding what Lacan calls the fundamental fantasy.

   Surprisingly, there’s nothing on the dynamics of therapy, which in this story ought to correspond to modifying the topos/refining the theory. That got me wondering outside of anything psychoanalytic how to get the classifying topos concept to relate to Aufhebung, level of a topos, etc. Whenever we have some resolution of an opposition, should we be able to describe it via theory extension? This from Aufhebung suggests so

   We can think of the inclusion of the sheaf category of a lower level into the higher sheaf category as an analytic relation between the concepts involved: when viewed as a relation between the geometric theories classified by the respective subtoposes an inclusion relation corresponds indeed to an unpacking of the richer theory of the smaller subtopos e.g. the subtopos corresponding to the theory of local rings is included in the topos corresponding to the theory of rings which on the conceptual side is spelled out as a local ring is a ring, or, the concept ’local ring’ implies the concept ’ring’. So the passage from subtopos to including supratopos corresponds to an unfolding of the concepts implied in the subtopos concept.

   So if $\empty\dashv \ast$ corresponds to the inconsistent geometric theory. what should we say for $\flat\dashv \sharp$?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI guess to answer my final question, it's the passage from the inconsistent geometric theory to the empty geometric theory.

   I guess to answer my final question, it’s the passage from the inconsistent geometric theory to the empty geometric theory.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Surprisingly, there’s nothing on the dynamics of therapy, Are you being serious in your surprise here? It sounds to me like "He built a castle in the sky --- *surprisingly* he forgot to add a stable for the horses." :-)

   Surprisingly, there’s nothing on the dynamics of therapy,

   Are you being serious in your surprise here? It sounds to me like “He built a castle in the sky — surprisingly he forgot to add a stable for the horses.” :-)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexWell, even someone sketching out an imaginary castle should mention essential components, walls, towers, drawbridges, etc., so you might expect a conversation on the unconscious lasting over 160 pages to touch on therapy. But anyway, the mathematical question (which I could pose elsewhere) concerns the relationship between related classifying toposes and levels of a topos/[[Aufhebung]]. I hadn't considered thinking of the latter in terms of the former.

   Well, even someone sketching out an imaginary castle should mention essential components, walls, towers, drawbridges, etc., so you might expect a conversation on the unconscious lasting over 160 pages to touch on therapy.

   But anyway, the mathematical question (which I could pose elsewhere) concerns the relationship between related classifying toposes and levels of a topos/Aufhebung. I hadn’t considered thinking of the latter in terms of the former.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSo I gather you are not being ironic; you believe it makes sense to say that psychotherapy is about modifying a topos? I feel that statements like this do little good unless accompanied by a substantial argument that makes plausible why what superficially sounds inane may have something noteworthy to it. Compare for instance Conway & Kochen's "Free will theorem": The verbiage is comparably whimsical, but there it serves as advertisement for an observation that is noteworthy in itself. Another similar case is the *[[canonical formula of myth]]*, which (for reasons that escape me, admittedly) has inspired mathematicians to associate contentful statements with the colorful verbiage.

   So I gather you are not being ironic; you believe it makes sense to say that psychotherapy is about modifying a topos?

   I feel that statements like this do little good unless accompanied by a substantial argument that makes plausible why what superficially sounds inane may have something noteworthy to it.

   Compare for instance Conway & Kochen’s “Free will theorem”: The verbiage is comparably whimsical, but there it serves as advertisement for an observation that is noteworthy in itself.

   Another similar case is the canonical formula of myth, which (for reasons that escape me, admittedly) has inspired mathematicians to associate contentful statements with the colorful verbiage.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 19th 2023
   • (edited May 19th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexDid you know I spent about 18 months in Paris studying Lacanian psychoanalysis, before returning to London to work on philosophy and category theory? Naturally, I was interested to see what someone like Connes made of the task of relating these worlds. I think very little. It seemed to me an obvious question he needed to pose to himself concerned change if he was to even begin to "make plausible why what superficially sounds inane may have something noteworthy to it." But he didn't. That sparked off the purely mathematical issue raised at the end of #4, which is why I started the discussion. As to whether I think there's any hope of a mathematical formulation of ideas from psychoanalysis, I sense some loose connections, but I agree that substantial work is required to reach something as developed as [[Science of Logic]]. There are strains of Jung that resemble Hegel.

   Did you know I spent about 18 months in Paris studying Lacanian psychoanalysis, before returning to London to work on philosophy and category theory? Naturally, I was interested to see what someone like Connes made of the task of relating these worlds. I think very little. It seemed to me an obvious question he needed to pose to himself concerned change if he was to even begin to “make plausible why what superficially sounds inane may have something noteworthy to it.” But he didn’t.

   That sparked off the purely mathematical issue raised at the end of #4, which is why I started the discussion.

   As to whether I think there’s any hope of a mathematical formulation of ideas from psychoanalysis, I sense some loose connections, but I agree that substantial work is required to reach something as developed as Science of Logic. There are strains of Jung that resemble Hegel.