Descriptive, Formal and Formalized Ontologies

Roberto Poli
University of Trento
Mitteleuropa Foundation

[email protected]

1. Overture
2. Descriptive, formal and formalized ontologies
3. Variants of formalized ontology
4. Some data on formal ontologists
5. A note on Husserl’s conception of formal ontology
6. Mereologies
7. Nominalization
8. The forms of representation
9. The logical and the ontological
10. Duality
11. States of affairs and situations of affairs
12. Unfolded state of affairs
13. Ontological duality
14. Intermezzo
15. Semiotic preliminaries
16. Non-Fregean Logics (NFL)
17. Propositional Calculuses with identity (PCI)
18. Truth Assignations
19. Extensions
20. Conclusion
21. References

1. Overture 1

I shall distinguish descriptive, formal and formalized ontology. Each of these ontologies
comes in two guises: domain-dependent and domain-independent. Domain-dependent
ontologies concern categorically closed regions of being; on the other hand, a domain-
independent ontology may be properly called general ontology.
Ontologies should have a sound methodological basis. Adequate ontologies are those
which satisfy the following requirement: what is predicated must be true of the class of
items with respect to which it is predicated.

Many theories [= ontologies], comprising no fallacy, are yet inadequate: one may form
the concept of ‘a cigar weighing five ounces’, predicate about that class everything
known about material things in general (about solid bodies in general, the chemical
properties of the ingredients of these cigars, the influence of smoking them on health, and
so on); these ‘theories’ – while perfectly correct – are manifestly inadequate since what is
predicated with respect to ‘cigars weighing five ounces’ is also true of innumerable
objects which do not belong to that class, such as cigars in general.
A theory may be inadequate either (1) because the predicates are related to classes which
are too narrow ... or (2) because the predicate is related to a class which is too broad (such
as various sociological theories which attribute ‘everything’ to the influence of one factor
which in fact plays a much more modest part) (Petrazycki, 1955, p. 19).
Petrazycki developed the above methodological perspective in 1905, in St Petersburg.
His viewpoint comes very close to the shortly previous perspective developed by
Husserl in Halle, and in particular to the idea of organic theory or of Mannigfaltigkeit
(as for the latter, cfr. Hill 2000).
Petrazycki's conditions may be more clearly stated by claiming that adequate
theories must be (i) universal, and (ii) closed. Closed universal theories may be aptly
called natural theories.
Following on the path opened by such thinkers like Husserl, Hartmann, Peirce
and Whitehead (and first of all by Aristotle), in this paper I shall adopt a categorical
viewpoint. Resorting to a categorical viewpoint means looking for ‘what is universal’
(either in general or in some specific domain). Those with a grounding in contemporary
mathematics will recognize here the similar claim advanced by Bill Lawvere some
decades ago: category theory, as a foundational theory, is based on ‘what is universal in
mathematics’ (Lawvere, 1969, p. 281).

2. Descriptive, formal and formalized ontologies

The unity and the variety of the world is the outcome of the complex interweaving of
dependence connections and forms of independence among the many items of which it
is composed. I shall seek to explain the features of this multiplicity by beginning with
an apparently trivial question: what is there in the world?
We may say that there are material things, plants and animals, as well as the
products of the talents and activities of animals and humans in the world. This first
almost trivial list already indicates that the world comprises not only things, animate or
inanimate, but also activities and processes and the products that derive from them.
It is likewise difficult to deny that there are thoughts, sensations and decisions, and the
entire spectrum of mental activities. Just as one is compelled to admit that there are laws
and rules, languages, societies and customs.
We can set about organizing this list of objects by saying that there are
independent items that may be real (mountains, flowers, animals, and tables), or ideal
(sets, propositions, values), and dependent items which in turn may be real (colours,
kisses, handshakes and falls) or ideal (formal properties and relations).
All these are in various respects items of the world. Some of them are actually
exemplified in the world in which we live; others have been exemplified in the past; and
yet others will possibly be exemplified in the future (Poli 2001, ch. 5).
Descriptive ontology concerns the collection of such prima facie information
either in some specific domain of analysis or in general.
Formal ontology distills, filters, codifies and organizes the results of descriptive
ontology (in either its local or global setting). According to this interpretation, formal
ontology is formal in the sense used by Husserl in his Logical Investigations. Being
‘formal’ in such a sense therefore means dealing with categories like thing, process,
matter, whole, part, and number. These are pure categories that characterize aspects or
types of reality and still have nothing to do with the use of any specific formalism.
Formal codification in the strict sense is undertaken at the third level of theory
construction: namely that of formalized ontology. The task here is to find the proper
formal codification for the constructs descriptively acquired and formally purified in the
way just indicated. The level of formalized constructions also relates to evaluation of

2
the adequacy (expressive, computational, cognitive) of the various formalisms, and to
the problem of their reciprocal translations.
The close similarity between the terms ‘formal’ and ‘formalized’ is somewhat
unfortunate. One way to avoid the clash is to use ‘categorical’ instead of ‘formal’.
Most contemporary theory recognizes only two levels of work and often merges
the level of the formal categories either with that of descriptive or with that of
formalized analysis. As a consequence, the specific relevance of categorical analyses is
too often neglected.
The three levels of ontology are different but not separate. In many respects they
affect each other. Descriptive findings may bear on formal categories; formalized
outcomes may bear on their twin levels, etc. To set out the differences and the
connections between the various ontological facets precisely is a most delicate task.

3. Variants of formalized ontology

Formalized ontology presents two main variants, depending on the preferred formal
environment. Its mainstream acception lies within a logical version of formal ontology;
the other version being characterized by the use of other mathematical environments
(algebraic and/or geometrical). In its turn, the logical interpretations of formal ontology
can be further subdivided between those working with classical or otherwise 1st order
predicate logic and those working with 2nd order logic.
Generally speaking, philosophers seem less acquainted with non-logical
ontologies, which are much more widespread in science, and I shall therefore confine
myself to a logical framework.

4. A few data about formal ontologists

A small dictionary of philosophers who have explicitly dealt with formal ontology
would be useful. Two observations are important: (1) in this section the expression
‘formal ontology’ will be used in the broad sense to refer to both the formal ontology
and the formalized ontology described in the previous section; (2) the qualification
‘explicitly’ is crucial. In effect, the range of formal ontology (in the sense given sub (1)
above) is so broad and so ramified that it is difficult to say who has not dealt with it. But
if we employ as our criterion the use of the expression ‘formal ontology’ (or something
similar) in a sense consistent with the one specified, we find that the list of authors
diminishes considerably.
The point of departure is obviously Husserl’s Logical Investigations. The author
who more than anyone else has developed the categorial analysis of ontology is Nicolai
Hartmann. As regards phenomenologists, the Husserlian who has paid closest attention
to the theme is Roman Ingarden, especially in his monumental work Der Streit um die
Existenz der Welt. Formal domain ontologies have been developed by Ingarden himself
(the domain of artistic phenomena with particular regard to literary works and the
domain of values), Hartmann (natural world, social world, art, values), Scheler (values),
Reinach (law), Stein (the concept of person), and Plessner (the social world).
Among analytic philosophers, we find a constant interest in the relationships
between the dimensions of the formal and of ontology from Carnap onwards. Authors
who warrant at least brief mention are certainly Goodman, Prior and Quine. More
difficult to classify for various reasons are the theories of Bunge and Sommers.

3
Johansson has developed an innovative categorical approach which reveals the
influence of the Brentanian tradition (Husserl and Marty in particular) as well as the
Marxian tradition, especially in his analysis of social action.
Nino Cocchiarella, Kit Fine and Jerzy Perzanowski are perhaps the most notable
of philosophers currently conducting explicitly formal analysis. Cocchiarella has
worked in particular on problems of predication and nominalization (issues explicitly
analyzed by Husserl), systematically reconstructing so-called theories of universals
(nominalism, conceptualism and realism, the latter two with important variants) in a
formally homogeneous environment. Of Fine’s many works, particular mention should
be made of those which formally reconstruct various fundamental concepts of the
philosophical tradition (the concept of substance among others), often starting from
their Aristotelian bases. Perzanowski has developed an innovative account of ontology
within a Leibnizian framework. From a formal point of view, a distinctive feature of his
position is the idea that there are formal structures which precede the distinction
between the propositional and the predicative levels and require particular algebraic
codification (Perzanowski, 1996). One aspect to be noted is that all three of these
philosophers work in explicitly formal terms while simultaneously paying close
attention to Husserlian matters (Cocchiarella has analysed the already-mentioned
problems of predication and nominalization; Fine has developed a sophisticated
algebraic reconstruction of the third Logical Investigation; Perzanowski was one of
Ingarden’s pupils).
In the past twenty years, a group of mainly (but not exclusively) analytic
philosophers have drawn on the work of one of Brentano’s pupils to develop new
formal tools. I am obviously referring to so-called Meinongian semantics, the history of
which divides into two main periods. The first was during the mid-1980s and is
particularly closely associated with Lambert, Parsons, Rapaport, Sylvan and Zalta.
These are authors whose names establish further connections with free logics, relevant
logics and paraconsistent logics. The second, more recent, period is associated
especially with the names of Jacquette and Pasniczek (works reviewed in Poli 1998b
and Poli 1999).
One author who has engaged in dialogue with those just mentioned, although he
developed his own and original point of view, was Hector-Neri Castañeda, whose guise
theory proposes a wide series of predicative structures both ontological and cognitive.
Castañeda’s premature death prevented further development of his theory and it remains
incomplete.
Also to be mentioned is a minor, mainly American philosophical tradition which
although it lies outside the analytic tradition has nevertheless made a major contribution
to formal ontology. I refer to the tradition of ‘dynamic ontology’ developed by Peirce,
Whitehead, Butler and Hartshorne and which a fine book by Rescher has recently
revitalized (cfr. Rescher, 1996). Also linked with this tradition is the interesting school
of ‘process theology’.
Despite its apparent diversity, the ‘dynamic’ tradition in the English-speaking
countries has taken up positions which come significantly close to those developed by
the German-speaking sister tradition associated with the names of Brentano, Husserl,
Meinong and Hartmann. Thorough comparison between the two traditions has yet to be
made (worth mentioning among the few that I know is Mohanty 1957).
Other areas of inquiry are Perry and Barwise’s situation semantics and Suszko’s
non-Fregean logics. While the work of the former two authors is so well known that it
requires no introduction, Suszko’s deserves closer analysis. This I shall provide below
when discussing the problem of the identity connective.

4
 Lying midway between the analytic and phenomenological traditions are the
studies of Barry Smith and Peter Simons, who deal in particular with the theory of parts
and the development of a general mereology which, according to Smith, constitutes the
fundamental instrument of ontology.
Studies which find inspiration in phenomenology and draw their tools from
algebraic topology has been developed by Jean Petitot, who studied under René Thom
and has continued his catastrophe theory.
Finally, my own work seeks to overcome the limitations of the two schools of
dynamic philosophy (the German ‘camp’ of Brentano and his followers, and the
American ‘camp’ of Peirce and Whitehead) by developing a dynamic theory of
substances which comprises various interacting sub-theories, principally those of
particulars, of the levels of reality, and of wholes (Poli 2001).
These, therefore, are names of the philosophers currently at the forefront of work
in ontology.
Before closing this section, I would point out that the term and idea of
‘ontology’ have begun to enjoy currency in various sectors of artificial intelligence, and
particularly in (i) the representation of knowledge; (ii) theory of databases; (iii) natural
language processing; and (iv) automatic translation. In short, those who most frequently
talk about ontology are researchers in the acquisition, integration, sharing and re-
utilization of knowledge. Ontology comes into play as a viable strategy with which, for
example, to construct robust domain models. An ontologically grounded knowledge of
the objects of the domain should make their codification simpler, more transparent and
more natural. Indeed, ontology can give greater robustness to models by furnishing
criteria and categories with which to organize and construct them; and it is also able to
provide contexts in which different models can be embedded and re-categorized to
acquire greater reciprocal transparency (Poli 1996, Poli and Mazzola 2000, Poli 2001).

5. A note on Husserl’s conception of formal ontology

I have already mentioned that the concept of formal ontology was first formulated in
Husserl’s Logical Investigations. Perhaps the most significant aspect, however, is that
although the concept was subsequently refined and articulated, its essential features
remained substantially unchanged through the many subsequent ramifications of
Husserlian theory. This fact should be emphasized because it shows that formal
ontology has proceeded independently of the more strictly phenomenological
developments of Husserl. My evidence for this assertion consists in the fact that formal
ontology deals with the object as something that exists, that has already been
constituted, and that is somehow given. It does not concern itself with the process
(phenomenological or metaphysical) by which the object is constituted, nor with its
modes of subjective givenness (Poli, 1993).
For Husserl, a prime distinction to be drawn is between formal and material
concepts. Material concepts are typically exemplified by nouns, whether these are
proper, general or collective, or whether they are concrete or abstract. The question of
formal concepts is less straightforward because it is necessary to distinguish between
the domain of the logically formal and that of the ontologically formal. The former
comprises logical operators and functors, the latter concerns whatever pertains to the
‘object in general’ or the ‘simple something’ (Third Logical Investigation). Logical
formal concepts are thus negation, conjunction, implication and quantifiers. Ontological
formal concepts are: object, state of affairs, unity, plurality, number, relation,

5
connection (Prolegomena), subject and determination, individual, species and genus,
quality, cardinal number, order, ordinal number, whole, part, magnitude (Third Logical
Investigation).
On completion of the Logical Investigations, Husserl turned his attention to
mainly genetic inquiry into the inner consciousness of time, returning to descriptive
(noematic) analysis in Ideas I. The formal sciences now comprised ‘the formal-
ontological discipline represented by, besides formal logic … the other disciplines of
mathesis universalis (among which arithmetic, pure analysis, the doctrine of variety)’.
Ideas I goes further than the Logical Investigations by distinguishing the ontological
categories into syntactic categories and substrate categories. The former are derived
forms of objectuality and comprise: states of affairs, relation, unity, multiplicity,
number, order, ordinal number, etc. Removing the syntactic form from the syntactic
categories yields ‘objects that are no longer syntactic-categorical formations, so that we
have as yet unformed correlates of the functions of attributing, denying, connecting,
enumerating, etc. The ultimate categories of the substrate finally divide into the two
categories of ‘ultimate material essence’ and pure individual singularity or ‘this here
and now’.
Once essences have acquired form they become part of a hierarchy of species and
genera. The specific and general relationships among essences are not ‘relationships of
classes or sets’ because they are intensionally characterized, given that a more general
essence is ‘contained in immediate or mediate fashion’ within a singular one, in a
whole/part relationship. Parts are therefore to be understood as moments (i.e. as
distinguishable but not separable parts).
Like all objects also essences have content and form (Appendix 1). The content of
the objects of formal ontology is not a material content connected with the categories of
some material region. Rather, it is a content relative to the pure form of region and it is
obtained from the idea of objectuality in general, perhaps categorically transformed by
nominalizations. These furnish formal ontology its concepts by performing formal
categorical transformations of the idea of objectuality in general.
To summarize: emphasized in the passage from Logical Investigations to Ideas I
are four main aspects which find further development in Formal and Transcendental
Logic and Experience and Judgement. These problems pertain to the following: the
doctrine of the forms of logical meanings as a sub-level of a scientific mathesis
universalis; the distinction between syntactic form and ultimate substrate;
nominalization and use of the theory of parts and the whole in analysis of the
relationships among essences.
In Formal and Transcendental Logic, Husserl reiterates the ‘inseparable unity’ of
formal logical and mathematics ‘in the idea of a formal mathesis universalis’, adding
that ‘the authentic sense of a formal ontology’ resides in the pure analytic of non-
contradiction which concerns ‘everything possible and everything thinkable’.
Further ramifications of the theory are to be found in Experience and Judgement.
The distinction between syntactic forms and substrates is articulated into the further
distinction between syntactic or categorical forms and nuclear forms. Thus every
predicative judgement is characterized by a twofold ‘putting-into-form’: a nuclear
putting-into-form as substantivity and adjectivity, and a syntactic putting-into-form as
subject, predicate, etc. The logical subject and predicate have respectively the nuclear
form of substantivity and adjectivity, where the former designates the being-for-itself or
the substantiality of the object, while the latter designates the being-in-something-else
or the insubstantiality of the object. In Fregean terms, this is the difference between
saturatedness (of the subject) and non- saturatedness (of the predicate).

6
 Note also that we can always use nominalization to substantify an insubstantial
object. If we apply this procedure to the substrate/determination distinction, we find that
a substrate may be the substantialization of a property, as in the classic shifts from
‘white’ to ‘whiteness’ or from ‘beautiful’ to ‘beauty’. However, if we eliminate the
intervention of nominalization, we must eventually arrive at the absolute substrates and,
likewise, at the absolute properties. As regards formal ontology, which is our sole
interest here, the only pertinent aspect of the absolute substrate is the one founded on
something that is logically entirely indeterminate. The subsequent articulations of this
substrate divide between substantial (pieces) and insubstantial (moments). This
immediately raises the question of the division of the object, which according to Husserl
can be distinguished into pieces and moments. The former divide into substantial and
insubstantial pieces. Substantial pieces are the parts of the object that are external to
each other; insubstantial pieces are instead parts that co-penetrate each other.
Moments divide between immediate and mediate. Immediate moments are the
properties of the insubstantial pieces and the forms of connection among substantial
pieces. Mediate moments differ from the properties of the object in that they are
properties of the moments of the object.
In short, for Husserl formal ontology is characterized by the presence of the
following sub-theories:

• theory of the nuclear forms and syntactic forms;

• theory of parts and the whole;
• theory of nominalization.

I shall not discuss nuclear and syntactic forms any further here. Instead I shall now deal
briefly with the theory of parts and the problem of nominalization.

6. Mereologies

To be precise, the theory of parts and the whole concerns both formal ontology and
material ontology. It pertains to the former as the pure theory of independence and non-
independence, and to the latter as regards the particular laws of non-independence
which apply in the various ontological regions.
Mereologies (or theories of parts) are generally classified into extensional and
intensional. The former are ontologically monistic: every object that exists is an object;
the parts of objects are objects; and compositions of objects are objects as well. This is
the position put forward by Lesniewski, who starts from his interpretation of ontology
where he gives formal definition to the concept of ‘object’ and then extends it in his
mereology based on the notion of being a ‘proper part of’, then developing it further in
his theory of time and space. Intensional mereologies by contrast distinguish the parts of
an entity into independent and non-independent parts. The former are termed ‘pieces’,
and they are those that effectively assume the denomination ‘part’, while the latter are
called ‘moments’. From an ontological point of view, parts are objects in the same sense
that the entities of which they are parts are objects. Moments have a different
ontological valence. They are secondary objectualities and solely in the translated and
subjective sense. Which, however, does not mean arbitrary. Note the formulation
employed by Husserl, who speaks of the independence of parts and the non-
independence of moments, not of independence and dependence. The difference is a
subtle one but it is deliberately introduced. The reason for it resides in Husserl’s

7
mathematical training, where the use of negation is these cases signifies that equality is
possible. When a is said to be not-greater than b, this means that a is less than b or that
a is equal to b. Translated into our present case, when one states that a is non-
independent of b, the intention is to say that a is dependent on b or that a is equal to b.
Moments may therefore be equal to the whole of which they are moments, where,
however, the concept of equality should be understood in the sense of indiscernibility.
The possible indiscernibility of the moments from the whole should not be confused
with the possible identity of the part (as distinct from the proper part) with the whole. A
part may even be the whole itself, while a moment can at most coincide with the whole;
or in other words, it may be indiscernible from the whole but it is nonetheless distinct
from it.

7. Nominalization

Let us consider the standard situation of a statement taking the form P(a), where a is the
subject and P is the predicate. The subject denotes an object, i.e. something that is
independently saturated, ontologically self-sufficient and complete, and which does not
need to be determined further. The predicate is instead something that is intrinsically
unsaturated and which requires the noun to acquire completeness. Predicates correspond
to concepts. By means of nominalization we obtain a situation of the type F(P), where
the original predicate appears in the guise of a noun in the subjective position. In this
case, P is no longer unsaturated as it was in P(a), but it has the same subjective
characteristics as a, except that corresponding denotatively to a is an entity in the
universe of discourse. May we therefore say that also corresponding to the predicate P is
an object of the same type as the one that corresponds to a? Obviously not. Frege says
that corresponding to a nominalized predicate is a conceptual correlate which has
individual value and is therefore saturated. Between the predicate and the
nominalization of the predicate, i.e. between ‘P’ and ‘the concept P’ to use Frege’s
expression, there is a relationship of representation. That is to say, in this situation ‘the
concept P’ becomes the individual representative of ‘P’, where the latter stands as the
argument and the former as the value of the representation function.
Objects denoted by nominalized predicates are intensional entities, or in other
words, properties and relations which have their own abstract form of individuality. We
thus find ourselves in a situation where there are objects and conceptual correlates
endowed with their own specific individuality, as opposed to a lack of individuality by
concepts. A concept as such, in that it lacks individual characteristics, cannot be part of
any universe of discourse. With the nominalization of P in the sense of ‘the concept P’
one obtains an individual term in the theory of concepts which denotes not concepts but
special objects. For detailed treatment of the topic the obligatory reference is
Cocchiarella 1986.
From a formal point of view, the combination of the various cases can be shown
as follows Cocchiarella 1986, ch. 4):
(Abelard =) [∀Fn ][¬∃x](F = x)
(Abelard ≡) [∀Fn ][¬∃x](F ≡ x)
(Plato =) [∀Fn ][∃x](F = x)
(Plato ≡) [∀Fn ][∃x](F ≡ x)
where "≡" is used as the sign for indiscernibility, namely a ≡ b =df ∀F[F(a) ↔
F(b)].Abelard claims that nominalized predicates are singular terms that fail to refer (to
any thing). The connections between the various theses above are as follows:

8
 • (Abelard ≡) implies (Abelard =), that is to say: indiscernibility implies identity;
• (Plato =) implies (Plato ≡), that is to say: identity implies indiscernibility.
It is worth noting that Russell’s antinomy requires (Plato =). Applied to ∃F∀x(F(x) ↔
∃G[x = G ∧ ¬G(x)], Russell’s argument shows that the assumed concept is a non-thing,
i.e., ∀x(F(x) ↔ ∃G[x = G ∧ ¬G(x)]) → ¬∃x(F = x) (Cocchiarella 1986, p. 176).

8. The forms of representation

An interesting articulation of the point of view being presented here is the idea that the
saturation of the concepts forming atomic statements is not, as Frege maintained, a truth
value but rather a mental act or a speech act. Non-saturation thus consists in the purely
dispositional state of cognitive capacities. The exercise of these capacities informs the
mental acts of a predicative or referential nature. A categorical judgement thus becomes
a mental act consisting in the combined application and mutual saturation of a
referential concept and a predicative concept.
The non-saturatedness of the concepts also means that they may stand as logical
subjects by means of their individual representations. An aspect that has perhaps not
been sufficiently emphasized is that there are numerous modes of saturation. In general,
there will be as many modes of saturation as there are modes of predicating the concept.
From a logical point of view, the range of these modes comprises at least the following
cases:

• copula: associates the concept with an object as its individual bearer (concept as
property)
• logical choice: associates the concept with its official representative, as in
Hilbert’s theory of ε-terms (concept as one in particular);
• generalization: associates the concept with its general representative (concept as
one in general);
• denomination: associates the concept with the linguistic representative that
expresses it (concept as vox) (Bernini, 1987).

9. The logical and the ontological

We have seen that ontology comes in various guises. Logic itself presents a number of
different facets. In this regard, the following quotation from Gödel is exemplary in its
clarity:

Mathematical logic … has two quite different aspects. On the one hand, it is a section of
Mathematics treating of classes, relations, combinations of symbols, etc. instead of
numbers, functions, geometric figures, etc. On the other hand, it is a science prior to all
others, which contains the ideas and principles underlying all sciences (Gödel 1944, p.
123).

Gödel’s description of mathematical logic as the science that precedes all others is
entirely similar to the definition of metaphysics provided by Aristotle. It is accordingly
natural to think that mathematical logic (in Gödel’s second sense) is able to depict the
deepest-lying structural maps of reality. The two aspects of mathematical logic
distinguished by Gödel can be respectively denoted with the expressions, taken from

9
Heijenort 1967, of ‘logic as calculus’ and ‘logic as language’ (cfr. Cocchiarella 1974
and 1988).
Their difference resides in that logical form can be used to represent many
different things: logical validity, truth conditions, an abstract calculus, cognitive aspects
or even ontological structures. Gödel’s reading suggests that logic (as language) is
formal ontology.
The thesis of the identity of logic (as language) with (categorical) ontology is, as
we know, one of the essential assumptions of Platonism (or logical realism). Moreover,
it is one of the fundamental theses of the Hegelian dialectic and its paralogisms.
Unfortunately, the connections between the ontological and formal levels are
much more complicated than would appear from Godel’s observation. I shall therefore
resist Gödel’s solicitations and refrain from identifying logic (as language) sic e
simpliciter with ontology.
Let us assume that categorical ontology and the formal sciences both have the
task of searching for what is universal, in general or in some domain. The problem is
that we have no reason to think that what is universal in the formal sense must perforce
coincide with what is universal in the ontological sense. In other words, it is advisable
to keep what is universal in the formal sense separate from what is universal in the
ontological sense (unless there is some strong argument to the contrary).
One way to view the difference between the two accounts of universality is as
follows. Let us imagine that the structures of universality concretize themselves in
simplicity, in accordance with the ancient motto simplex sigillum veri (‘simplicity is the
seal of truth’), so that the more universal structures are also simpler (according to some
criterion of simplicity). If this were true, ontologically simpler (and therefore more
universal) structures should also be formally simpler (and vice versa).
Perhaps the most elementary example is the one that follows. Consider the
universe of states of affairs and the propositions that refer to them. As we know, when
adequately rigid ontological conditions are imposed upon states of affairs (i.e. upon the
objects of the universe of discourse), the usual propositional connectives are
interdefinable. If we instead relax the ontological conditions and therefore characterize
the universe of discourse in a more universal way, connectives are no longer
interdefinable (as in intuitionist logic).
Greater ontological rigidity may therefore simplify the formal level, but greater
ontological universality may make it more complex.

10. Duality

In the light of these considerations we may assume that it is possible to distinguish logic
(as language) from ontology. Having said this, however, perhaps the most interesting
aspect of the relationships between logic and ontology concerns neither their unification
nor their distinction but their correlation, or in other words, their reciprocal influence.
An area of particular significance for the study of the correlations between logic and
ontology is that of duality phenomena (in both the formal sciences and ontology).
Duality phenomena are well known in the formal sciences: suffice it to mention
situations like ideal / filter, open set / closed set, join / meet, intersection / union,
universal quantifier / particular quantifier, it-is-necessary-that / it-is-possible-that. While
analyzing the numerous cases of formal duality, Rosado Haddock (1991) points out that
(1) the feature shared by duals is their interderivability within a particular theory, and
that (2) interderivable propositions can be considered to be different states of affairs

10
which relate to the same situation of affairs. Rosado Haddock thus takes up Husserl’s
distinction between Sachverhalt and Sachlage. David W. Smith (1991) objects to the
strictly formal criterion used by Rosado Haddock on the ground that Husserl’s
distinction between states of affairs and situations of affairs is not essentially formal but
mainly ontological.
Strictly speaking, however, both Rosado Haddock and Smith are right, because
duality is a phenomenon with both formal and ontological aspects. In what follows we
shall also see that the discussion between Rosado Haddock and Smith has failed to
address what is perhaps the most interesting aspect of duality: the presence of two
sharply distinct families of dual phenomena.

11. States of affairs and situations of affairs

The following example is taken from Aristotle and was quoted by Anscombe and Geach
1961:

The road that leads from Athens to Thebes is the same road that leads from Thebes to
Athens: but in the former case it goes uphill, while in the latter it goes downhill.

We may therefore say that this road, qua road from Athens to Thebes, is uphill,
and that this same road, qua road from Thebes to Athens, is downhill. One thus
concludes that there is a relation between the object and the standpoint or the point of
view of looking at it. In entirely similar terms, Anscombe states that, ‘there aren’t such
objects as an A qua B, though an A may, qua B, receive such-and-such a salary and,
qua C, such-and-such a salary’ (Anscombe 1981b, 208; the role and the properties of
the functor qua are analyzed in Poli 1994 and 1998a).
It is well known that, for Husserl, cases like ‘A is part of B’, ‘B contains A as its
part’, are two states of affairs, which have the same situation of affairs as their
foundation. Corresponding to the same situation of affairs may be two or more states of
affairs; in the same way as corresponding to the same state of affairs may be two or
more propositions (thoughts) (Rosado Haddock 1991).
There follow examples of states of affairs that refer to the same situation of
affairs (Smith 1991):

• Heidi is Hans’s wife; Hans is Heidi’s husband;

• The glass is half full; the glass is half empty.

Husserl constructs states of affairs from situations of affairs on the basis of the
following principles:

• States of affairs are categorical structures;

• Situations of affairs are precategorial entities;
• States of affairs are founded upon situations of affairs;
• Different states of affairs may be founded upon the same situation (Smith 1991,
p. 52).

While commenting on these principles, David W. Smith adds:

11
 Unfortunately, the principles Husserl put forth do not tell us what situations are. Indeed,
some four different intuitions might lie behind these principles, yielding four different
notions of situation, outlined as follows:
1. […] Situations are just species, or types, of states of affairs […]
2. States of affairs might be thought of as aspects of situations (in effect reversing the
first proposal) […]
3. A situation might be viewed as the matter (Sache) from which different states of
affairs are formed […]
4. A situation might be viewed as a certain sort of part-whole complex, or affair
(Sache), from which parts are extracted and put together into states of affairs […]
What remains unclear, then, is the kind of unification that form a situation" (Smith 1991,
pp. 53-54).

The following table summarizes the situation:

Table 1.
Situation of affairs State of affair
Species Instance
Instance Aspect
Matter Form
Whole Part

In reality none of these oppositions seems to be correct. Consider the difference

between ‘The road that leads from Athens to Thebes’ and ‘The road that leads from
Thebes to Athens’. Their difference seems manageable between descriptions based on
‘pure’ or ‘a-directed’ relations as opposed to descriptions based on ‘directed’ relations.
Consider the difference between the following directed and a-directed diagrams:

The two directed graphs in the first row can be interpreted as "the road that leads from
Thebes to Athens" and "the road that leads from Athens to Thebes". These
interpretations are explicitly linked to a direction. On the contrary, the graph drawn
below “says” only that the two vertices (points) are connected. In other words, it
exemplifies only the pure situation of “being related to”. It is clear that the graphs in the
first row result from the graph drawn in the one below as soon as an indication of
direction is added (and vice versa).
We may therefore distinguish between two representational spaces: a space
composed of situations of affairs (a-directed graphs), and a space composed of states of
affairs (directed graphs).
If this reading of the difference between states of affairs and situations of affairs can be
generalized, then the relationship between situations and states would have the nature of
a theory-theory connection and would not correspond to any of the four oppositions in
Table 1.

12. Unfolded state of affairs

12
•—>··<—·
The situation can be further elaborated by introducing a third representational space that
mirrors the difference between the ontological viewpoint and the judgements. Daubert
first discussed this opposition. In the words of Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith:

To capture this opposition between how things stand in themselves and how they are
asserted to be in our judgements, Daubert [...] distinguishes between the Sachverhalt and
what he calls ‘Erkenntnisverhalt’, the ‘state of affairs as cognized’ or as ‘unfolded’ in
cognition [17v]. The former is the objectively existing structure of things, properties and
relations as they are in and of themselves. The latter is that side or aspects of the former
which serves as the immediate objectual correlate of a given concrete act of judging [...]
Thus consider: ‘The chairman opens the meeting’, ‘The chairman is opening the
meeting’, ‘The meeting is being opened by the chairman’, ‘The opening of the meeting is
being conducted by the chairman’, ‘The chairman has opened the meeting’, ‘The meeting
has been opened by the chairman’ [17v, 63r]. Each of these sentences differs as to its
associated state of affairs as cognized, but they are in fact concerned with one and the
same objective Sachverhalt (Schuhmann and Smith 1987a, pp. 367-8).

The examples quoted require a theory able to unify them into a coherent whole. This
will contain ‘chairman’, ‘meeting’, ‘opening the meeting’, and so forth, as primitive or
derived terms. It will be about the worldly structure of meetings—that is, it will be
about how things are.
It follows that at least three different levels can be distinguished: the level of the
Sachlage, the level of the Sachverhalt, and the level of the Erkenntnisverhalt. From a
formal point of view, aspects of the latter can be represented by allowing more edges
between two adjacent vertices (as in multigraphs).
Let us now try to construe the logical table corresponding to the ontologically-
grounded distinctions so far considered.

Table 2.
Ontological Logical
Erkenntnisverhalt Utterance
Sachverhalt Sentence
Sachlage Situation
(Evidence) Truth-value

Both sides present a many-one form of connection. As regards the logical side, this
means that many utterances may express one sentence; many sentences may express one
situation; and many situations may express one truth-value. By resorting to other
conceptual frameworks, we may also say that utterances instantiate judgments;
sentences instantiate senses (categorical objectualities); situations instantiate things-in-
themselves (pre-categorical objectualities); and truth-values instantiate … well, nothing
but themselves.
In their turn, all of these are values of a common, basic argument. Call it
‘proposition’. We will say that propositions have utterances, sentences, situations and
truth-values as their functional values. What this means will soon become clearer (see §
15 below).
The ontological side presents the very same many/one structure as the logical
one. Many unfolded states of affairs may refer to one state of affairs, etc. The onto-
logical rock-bottom level represented by ‘evidence’ has been bracketed because used in

13
this way it is a more Brentanian than Husserlian concept. All the ontological categories
are values of a common argument which may be called ‘thought’ or ‘content’.
Let me summarize the discussion thus far. On analysing a number of classic
situations of categorial duality, we have seen the possibility of an underlying
precategorial unification (the relationship between states of affairs and situations of
affairs). The unification therefore acts as a quotient or invariant. I then generalized the
procedure by unifying a multiplicity of unfolded states of affairs in their underlying
state of affairs. The two steps were made uniform by constructing a table of quotients in
which multiplicities of items were progressively unified at increasingly profound levels.
The table of quotients was also constructed in two different guises, one formal and one
ontological.
If we operate in this manner, duality phenomena become a particular case of a
more widespread phenomenon. On this basis, which we may take as given, we can now
deepen our examination of categorial dualities.

13. Ontological duality

The importance of duality emerges as soon as one understands that there are two
significantly different families of dual phenomena distinguished by the result obtained
when iterating the duality operation. Given an item C, we may use C* to denote the dual
of C. The fundamental difference between the two families of dualities thus becomes
the difference between case C** = C and the case C** ≠ C. I shall call the first form of
duality an ‘elementary duality’ and its complement a ‘non-elementary duality’.
Non-elementary duality is a fundamental aspect of the categorical analysis of
ontology. For the sake of simplicity, here the term ‘categories’ refers to both principles
and categories in the strict sense (on the difference between categories and principles in
Aristotle see Poli 2001, p. 59).
To show how broad is the phenomenon of categorical duality, suffice it to
mention some of the best-known categorical pairs.
Besides pairs of categories with a recognized mathematical meaning, like
finite/infinite and discrete/continuous, one easily finds many further categorical pairs
that have figured prominently in the history of philosophy. For example:

• matter/form
• potential/act
• quality/quantity
• one/many
• identity/difference
• individual/universal
• part/whole

A moment’s reflection shows that the dualities that hold within these pairs of categories
are not elementary: the form of a certain substance is the substance of another form
different from the initial one; the act of a certain potential is the potential of a new act
different from the initial one; and so on.
The categorical duality that holds in ontology (at least with regard to the pairs of
categories listed above) is therefore not an elementary duality.

14
 14. Intermezzo

The final part of this article exemplifies in formal terms (some of) the distinctions
introduced in Table 2 above.
The story whose outcomes are described below began with a seminar on the
Tractatus organized by Tadeusz Czez-owski in Toruń at the end of the 1950s. The
seminar was attended by Bogusl- aw Wolniewicz, who recast its contents in original
form. The results of this re-elaboration were set out in Rzeczy i facty [Things and facts],
1968, and in Ontologia sytuacij [Ontology of situations], 1985 (some of Wolniewicz’s
works in English are cited in the references). During the 1960s, Roman Suszko met
Wolniewicz and read the manuscript of the former book. Thereafter he developed the
so-called W-languages (W for Wittgenstein) from which derive the non- Fregean logics
outlined below (see the references for bibliographical details).
Independently of the Polish logicians, Barwise and Perry developed a somewhat
similar theory in Situations and Attitudes, As far as I know, a systematic comparison
between the two perspectives has not yet been conducted.

15. Semiotic preliminaries

As we know, for Frege there were only two ontological correlates of propositions: the
True and the False. All true propositions denote the True, and all false prepositions
denote the False. From an ontological point of view, if all true propositions denote
exactly one and the same entity, then the underlying philosophical position is the
absolute monism of facts.
In what follows I shall seek to disprove what Suszko called ‘Frege’s axiom’:
namely the assumption that there exist only two referents for propositions.
Frege’s position on propositions was part of a more general view. Indeed, Frege
adopted a principle of homogeneity (Perzanowski, 1992) according to which there are
two fundamental categories of signs (Bedeutungen and truth-values) and two
fundamental categories of senses (Sinn and Gedanken).
Both categories of signs (names and propositions) have sense and reference. The
sense of a name is its Sinn, that way in which its referent is given, while the referent
itself, the Bedeutung, is the object named by the name. As for propositions, their sense
is the Gedanke, while their reference is their logical value.
Since the two semiotic triangles are entirely similar in structure, we need analyze
only one of them: that relative to propositions.

Fig. 1 p

s r

s(p) r(p)
f

Here p is a proposition, s(p) is the sense of p, and r(p) is the referent of p. The
functional composition states that s(p) is the way in which p yields r(p). The triangle
has been drawn with the functions linking its vertexes explicitly shown. When the

15
►
functions are composable, the triangle is said to commute, yielding f(s(p)) = r(p), or f °
s(p) = r(p).
An interesting question now arises: is it possible to generalize the semiotic
triangle? And if it is possible to do so, what is required?
Useful here are the Husserlian distinctions set out in Table 2. A first
reorganization and generalization of the semiotic triangle therefore involves an explicit
differentiation between the truth-value assigning function and the referent assigning
function. We thus have the following double semiotic triangle:

Fig. 2 p

s r t

f g
s(p) r(p) t(p)

where r stands for the referent assigning function and t for the truth-value assigning
function. Again on the basis of Table 2, we may further extend the original semiotic
triangle by also considering utterances:

Fig. 3 p

u s r t

h f g
u(p) s(p) r(p) t(p)

In order not to complicate the situation excessively, in what follows I shall deal solely
with the right-hand side of the multi-triangle in Fig. 3, the one corresponding to what I
have called the double semiotic triangle (Fig. 2).
Suszko uses the terms logical valuations for the procedures that assign truth-
values, and algebraic valuations for those that assign referents. By arguing for the
existence of only two referents, Frege ends up by collapsing logical and algebraic
valuations together, thereby rendering them indistinguishable.
Having generalized the semiotic triangle into the double semiotic triangle, we
must now address the following questions:

1. when do two propositions have the same truth value?

2. when do two propositions have the same referent?
3. when do two propositions have the same sense?

I shall distinguish among the three cases by talking respectively of equivalence, identity
and synonymy. Sameness of logical value will be denoted by ↔ (logical equivalence),
while sameness of referent will be indicated with ≡ (not to be confused with the
equiform ≡ used in § 7 to express indiscernibility) and sameness of sense (synonymy)
by ≈. Two propositions are synonymous when they have the same sense:

(p ≈ q) = 1 iff (s(p) = s(q)) = 1.

Two propositions are identical when they have the same referent:

16
 (p ≡ q) = 1 iff (r(p) = r(q)) = 1.

Two propositions are equivalent when they have the same truth value:

(p ↔ q) = 1 iff (t(p) = t(q)) = 1.

These various concepts are functionally connected as follows:

s(p) = s(q) implies r(p) = r(q),

r(p) = r(q) implies t(p) = t(q).

I shall now examine the identity connective in particular.

In general, the constraints that we impose on referents correspond to the
ontological assumptions that characterize the theory. The most general logic of all is the
one that imposes no restriction at all on r valuations. Just as Fregean logic recognizes
only two referents so the most general logic recognizes an more than numerable set of
them. Between these two extremes, of course, there are numerous intermediate cases.
Pure non-Fregean logic is extremely weak, a chaos. If it is to yield something, it must be
strengthened.

16. Non-Fregean Logics (NFLs)

In accordance with the Polish tradition, here by ‘logic’ is not meant a set of theorems
but a consequence relation generated by axioms and rules of inference (cf. Wojcicki
1988). In general terms, a formal language is composed of

• declarative variables;
• nominal and predicative variables;
• truth-functional connectives and auxiliary signs:
• quantifiers;
• identity connective;
• identity predicate.

Since here we are only concerned with propositional logics, our language will be
much simpler. For example, there will be no nominal or predicative variables and
consequently no identity predicate. Instead, unlike in the usual propositional calculuses,
there will be quantifiers. The reason for this is obvious. In Fregean calculus, the
quantifiers vary on the two sole situations constituted by the truth-values of truth and
falsehood and have no role to perform. Instead, in a logic which admits to a multiplicity
of situations, the quantifiers have an effective function to perform. We shall also have
an identity connective distinct from double implication. In the usual propositional
calculuses, identity is obviously indistinguishable from double implication. Unlike the
usual connectives, the identity connective is not truth-functional: in other words, it does
not admit to an extensional principle of composition.
The propositional component of NFLs is termed Sentential Calculus with
Identity (SCI). Obviously, there is truth-functional bivalence in non- Fregean logics but
no ontological bivalence.

17
 As said, prepositional identity will be denoted with the symbol ≡, and an
equation will be called a formula of the type A ≡ B. Only modus ponens will be used as
a derivation rule. In order to characterize the calculus, we need:

• axioms for the truth-functional connectives

• axioms for the quantifiers
• axioms for the identity connective.

For the sake of simplicity I shall omit the section on the quantifiers. In Ishii’s
(2000) version, the truth-functional axioms (TFA) of logic L are:

A1. A → (B → A)
A2. (A → (B → C)) → ((A → B) → (A → C))
A3. A∧ B→A
A4. A∧ B→B
A5. A → (B → (A ∧ B))
A6. A → (A ∨ B)
A7. B → (A ∨ B)
A8. (A → C) → ((B → C) → (A ∨ B → C))
A9. A → (¬A → B)
A10. ¬¬A → A

The identity axioms (IDA) are now added to the truth-functional axioms:

A11. A≡A
A12. (A ≡ B) → (B ≡ A)
A13. (A ≡ B) ∧ (B ≡ C) → (A ≡ C)
A14. (A ≡ B) → (¬A ≡ ¬B)
A15. (A ≡ B) ∧ (C ≡ D) → (A ∧ C) ≡ (B ∧ D)
A16. (A ≡ B) ∧ (C ≡ D) → (A ∨ C) ≡ (B ∨ D)
A17. (A ≡ B) ∧ (C ≡ D) → (A → C) ≡ (B → D)
A18. (A ≡ B) ∧ (C ≡ D) → (A ≡ C) ≡ (B ≡ D)
A19. (A ≡ B) → (A → B)

The union of the truth-functional axioms TFA and of the identity axioms IDA will be
termed the set of logical axioms and called LA.

17. Propositional Calculuses with Identity (PCI)

The non-Fregean logics just outlined are very general. Yet, as Ishii (2000) points
out, they are not entirely general. In order to obtain an effectively general situation we
must abolish axioms A18 and A19, thereby relinquishing transitivity and reflexivity.
Ishii has called the logic thus obtained Propositional Calculus with Identity (PCI).
PCI is so weak that it does not even comprise a substitution law A ≡ B →
(G[A/p] ≡ G[B/p], which instead holds for NFLs. For this reason, PCI has all the
credentials to perform the role of a general logic.

18
18. Truth Valuation

The next step is to valuate, in perfectly routine manner, the truth-value of our
propositions. Given a truth valuation, we immediately have a logical consequence
dependent upon it, as well as the set of its tautologies called TAUT. In analytical terms:
a function V from the set of formulas to the truth values {0,1}is a truth valuation iff:

V(¬A) = ¬V(A)
V(A ∧ B) = 1 sse V(A) = V(B) = 1 (and so on, as usual, for ∨, →, ↔).
V(A ≡ A) = 1
V(¬A ≡ ¬B) = 1 sse V(A ≡ B) = 1
V([A # C] ↔ [B # D]) = 1 se V(A ≡ B) = V(C ≡ D) = 1, where # stands for any one of
the binary connectives ∧, ∨, →, ↔ and ≡
V(A ≡ B) = 0 whenever V(A) ≠ V(B).

It follows immediately that TAUT is invariant and finite (and therefore decidable).
We divide truth functions into two groups: those that hold for the usual truth-
functional connectives, and those that hold for the identity connective. The former
group comprises the truth-functional tautologies (TFT), for example formulas like p ∨
¬p, p → p, ¬(p ∧ ¬p), ecc. This is obviously an invariant set.
Having distinguished the sub-set TFT from TAUT, the question naturally arises
as to which formulas pertain to the complement of TFT. Here are some examples: p ≡
p, (p ≡ q) ∧ (q ≡ r) → (p ≡ r); (p ≡ q) → (q ≡ p); (p ≡ q) → (¬p ≡ ¬q).
As Suszko points out, these formulas are entirely trivial because none of them
can be an equation of the form A ≡ B or of the form ¬(A ≡ B). Nevertheless we also
obtain a non-trivial result: the identity connective is tautologically symmetric, which
implies that (p ≡ q) ↔ (q ≡ p) is a tautology that pertains to the complement of TFT. By
contrast, (p ≡ q) ≡ (q ≡ p) is not even a tautology. Put in discursive terms, to say that ‘p
is identical to q’ is equivalent to ‘q is identical to p’ is a tautology, while to say that ‘p is
identical to q’ and ‘q is identical to p’ are identically the same statement is not a
tautology.
There are numerous examples of the type just given. Because the equivalences
that follow are in TFT they are also in TAUT:

• ¬¬(p) ↔ p;
• p ∧ p ↔ p;
• (p ∨ q) ↔ ¬(p → q);
• (p ∧ q) ↔ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q).

But the equations corresponding to them are not in TFT:

• ¬¬(p) ≡ p;
• p ∧ p ≡ p;
• (p ∨ q) ≡ ¬(p → q);
• (p ∧ q) ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q).

This reiterates the difference between formal equivalence and identity of

referents. In non- Fregean logics, an expression like ¬(p ∨ q ≡ ¬p → q) is not a

19
problem. If one decides to construe p ∨ q as an abbreviation of p → q, then one has
decided to adopt p ∨ q ≡ p → q as axiom. The same applies to all abbreviations.
In general, the triviality of the logical theorems of the calculus confirms the fact
that we are operating at an absolutely general level. In order to obtain meaningful
theorems we must add some supplementary conditions, as we have seen.

19. Extensions

The extreme weakness of the logics discussed is further borne out by the fact that every
adequate model of the consequence relation of NFLs – call it Cn – is more than
countable, i.e. has the power of the continuum. For reasons of both technical
manageability and ontological valuation, however, we need something stronger: namely
extensions of Cn and in particular invariant extensions, i.e. ones closed under
substitution.
An extension obtained by adding an additional set of axioms to LA is an
‘elementary extension’. The logics obtained by adding new axioms have some non-
logical content, i.e. non-tautological assumptions of ontological significance.
The first and most natural step is therefore to consider the elementary extensions
of Cn.
Suszko has developed extensions of SCI able to represent Lukasiewicz’s three-
valued system (interpreting A ≡ B as A ↔ B, where ↔ is Lukasiewicz’s three-value
equivalence), and the modal systems S4 and S5 (interpreting A ≡ B as ≤(A ↔ B)). Ishii
(2000) has generalized the procedure, representing numerous other logics in opportune
extensions of PCI (Corsi's weak logic F, Girard's linear logic GL, modal logics K, KT,
KB, K4, KD, K5).
I shall restrict my discussion to the passage from Cn to CnF, where CnF is the
consequence relation that holds for Fregean logic.
The invariant theorem on which Fregean logic is based is given by any one of
the following axioms:

(A ↔ B) → (A ≡ B)
(A ↔ B) ↔ (A ≡ B)
(A ↔ B) ≡ (A ≡ B)
(A ≡ B) ∨ (A ≡ C) ∨ (B ≡ C)

I shall refer to any of these axioms as aF. Note that the third formula explicitly
identifies ↔ with ≡. The two connectives thus become completely indistinguishable, ≡
becomes truth-functional, and ↔ has all the properties of the identity connective. It is
not difficult to ascertain that aF is neither in TFT nor in TAUT.
The procedure briefly exemplified indicates that the general logic can be
constrained by adding various groups of axioms relative to identity, i.e to the universe
of the referents.
Both Frege’s axiom and its negation are logical theorems because both can be
adopted by non- Fregean logics. The independence of Frege’s axiom was proved by
Tarski in his doctoral thesis (1923), in which he explicitly compared it to Euclid’s fifth
postulate (Suszko 1977, p. 379). Frege’s logic (FL) is therefore a particular case of
NFL.

20
20. Conclusion

The formal analysis of the previous sections has various aspects which should be
explicitly mentioned.
The first and obvious one is that the ontological-formal restrictions imposed on
the propositional fragment of NFL articulate the content of the identity connective.
Hence identity is neither an empty concept nor a universal invariant.
The second aspect is that numerous ontologically interesting variations of logical
systems seem to operate in the space between Cn and CnF. It remains to be seen
whether the extensions of Cn which do not lead to CnF are worth studying as well
(probably not, but this cannot be taken for granted).
Thirdly, usual logical practice does not move in the same direction that we have
followed (from Cn to CnF). They usually start from classical logic and extend it in
various ways (for example by adding new operators, as in modal logics). This raises the
problem of the connections between the two strategies: the one that sees classical logic
as its point of departure and the one that sees it as its point of arrival. From an
ontological point of view, the latter approach seems perfectly sensible, because it
articulates the spectrum of positions that lead from indeterminate chaos to monism. The
ontological significance of the other approach is not clear (so that it is not surprising if
the ontological sense of the semantics of possible worlds is obscure). Whatever the case
may be, the problem of the relationship between what comes before and what comes
after Fregean logic (well known since Gödel’s mapping between intuitionist logic and
S4) is still open, from an ontological viewpoint.
The fourth aspect concerns the problem of the duality between identity and
difference. PCI logics can be understood from the point of view of variations of identity
(point 1 above). But what happens if we decide to use difference instead of identity?
Intuitionist logic and mathematics, for example, seem more easily constructable on the
basis of the relation of apartness, which is a type of difference (cf. van Dalen, 1994).
We know that this yields a theory of order more sophisticated than the classical one. Is
difference perhaps richer than identity?
Fifthly, the logics discussed have a classical basis and they terminate in classical
logic. What happens if we try to adopt an intuitionist basis?
Finally, the items of the universe can be studied in various ways. The two that
have proved most useful are decomposition and parameterization. The decomposition
method presupposes that it is possible to inspect the item, and therefore that it is at least
partly amenable to investigation. Ideally, the decomposition method works perfectly
when the procedure is reversible and the whole can be reconstructed from its parts. The
principle of truth-functional composition is a perfect formal codification of this ideal
situation.
By contrast, the parameterization method treats the item as a black box which
cannot be opened to see what is inside. But it is still possible to study the item by
analyzing its responses to changes in external conditions (which in this case function as
parameters). The most banal example is that of parameterization with respect to time. In
this case, the expression T → O can be used to indicate study of item O with respect to
the parameter ‘time’. The study of identity (and the correlated study of difference)
briefly outlined above belongs to this second method of analysis.

21
Notes

1 Thanks are due to R. Corazzon, L. Ekeberg and B. Smith for their comments to an
earlier version of this paper.

References

Albertazzi 1998 L. Albertazzi, ed., Shapes of Forms, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1998.

Anscombe 1981a G. E. M. Anscombe, Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind, Oxford,
Blackwell.
Anscombe 1981b G. E. M. Anscombe, "Under a Description", in Anscombe 1981a, pp. 208-
219.
Anscombe and Geach 1961 G. E. M. Anscombe and P. Geach, Three Philosophers.
Aristotle, Aquinas, Frege, Oxford.
Barwise and Perry 1984 J. Barwise and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge
(Mass.) London, MIT Press, 1984.
Bernini 1987 S. Bernini, "Considerazioni sulla nozione fregeana di concetto", Rivista di
filosofia , 2, 1987, pp. 220-247.
Bloom and Suszko 1972 S. Bloom and R. Suszko, “Investigations Into the Sentential
Calculus With Identity”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1972, pp.
289-308.
Cocchiarella 1974 N. B. Cocchiarella, “Formal Ontology and the Foundations of Mathematics”,
in G. Nakhnikian, ed., Bertrand Russell’s Philosophy, Duckworth, London,
1974, pp. 29-46.
Cocchiarella 1986 N. B. Cocchiarella, Logical Investigations of Predication Theory and the
Problem of Universals, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986.
Cocchiarella 1988 N. B. Cocchiarella, “Predication versus Membership in the Distinction
Between Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus, Synthèse, 77, 1988, pp.
37-72.
Gödel 1944 K. Gödel, "Russell's Mathematical Logic", in Schilpp 1944, pp. 123-153.
Green 1996 R. Green, ed., Knowledge Organization and Change, Frankfurt am Main,
INDEKS Verlag, 1996.
Heijenoort 1967 J. van Heijenoort, "Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus", Synthèse, 17,
1967, pp. 324-340 (various reprints).
Hill 2000 C.O. Hill, "Husserl's Mannigfaltigkeitslehre", in Hill and Rosado Haddock
2000, pp. 161-178.
Hill and Rosado Haddock 2000 C. O. Hill and G. E. Rosado Haddock, Husserl or Frege?
Meaning, Objectivity, and Mathematics, Open Court, Chicago and La Salle,
2000.
Ishii 2000 T. Ishii, Nonclassical Logics With Identity Connective and Their Algebraic
Characterization, PhD, School of Information Science, Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology, 2000.
Kawaguchi et al. 2000 E. Kawaguchi, H. Kangassalo, H. Jaakkola, I.A. Hamid, eds.,
Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XI, IOS Press, Amsterdam,
2000.
Lawvere 1969 W. Lawvere, "Adjointness in Foundations", Dialectica, 23, 1969, pp. 281-
296.
Mohanty 1957 J. N. Mohanty, Nicolai Hartmann and Alfred North Whitehead. A Study in
Recent Platonism, Calcutta, Progressive Publishers, 1957.
Omyl-a 1996 M. Omyl-a, “A Formal Ontology of Situations”, in Poli and Simons 1996, pp.
173-187.
Omyl-a and Zygmunt 1984 M. Omyl-a and J. Zygmunt, “Roman Suszko (1919-1979): A
Bibliography of the Published Work With an Outline of His Logical
Investigations”, Studia Logica, 1984, pp. 421-441.

22
Parikh 1975 R. Parikh, ed., Logic Colloquium, Springer Verlag, 1975.
Perzanowski 1993 J. Perzanowski, "What is Non-Fregean in the Semantics of Wittgenstein's
Tractatus and Why?", Axiomathes 1993, 4, pp. 357-372; previosly published
as "Ce qu'il y a de non Frégéen dans la sémantique du Tractatus de
Wittgenstein and pourquoi", in J. Sebestik and A. Soulez, eds., Wittgenstein
et la philosophie aujoud'hui, Paris, Meridiens, 1992, pp. 163-177.
Perzanowski 1996 J. Perzanowski, "The Way of Truth", in Poli and Simons 1996, pp. 61-130.
Petrazycki 1955 L. Petrazycki, Law and Morality, partial tr. by H.W. Babb, with an intr. by
N. S. Timasheff, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1955 (1st
Russian ed. 1905).
Poli 1992 R. Poli, Ontologia formale, Genova, Marietti, 1992.
Poli 1993 R. Poli, “Husserl’s Conception of Formal Ontology”, in History and
Philosophy of Logic, 1993, pp. 1-14.
Poli 1994 R. Poli, “Formal Aspects of Reduplication”, Logic and Logical Philosophy,
2, 1994, pp. 87-102.
Poli 1995 R. Poli, “Bimodality of Formal Ontology and Mereology”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, special issue, 43, 1995, pp. 687-696.
Poli 1996 R. Poli, “Ontology for Knowledge Organization”, in Green 1996, pp. 313-
319.
Poli 1998a R. Poli, “Qua-Theories”, in Albertazzi 1998, pp. 245-256.
Poli 1998b R. Poli review of D. Jacquette , Meinongian Logic. The Semantic of Existence
and Nonexistence, History and Philosophy of Logic, 19, 1998, pp. 115-119.
Poli 1999 R. Poli review of J. Pasniczek, The Logic of Intentional Objects. A
Meinongian Version of Classical Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer 1998, 212 pp.,
History and Philosophy of Logic, 1999, 20, pp. 139-141.
Poli 2001 R. Poli, Alwis. Ontology for Knowledge Engineers, PhD thesis, Utrecht,
2001.
Poli and Mazzola 2000 R. Poli and G. Mazzola, “Semiotic Aspects of Generalized Bases of
Data”, in Kawaguchi et al. 2000, pp. 1-11.
Poli and Simons R. Poli and P. Simons, eds., Formal Ontology, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1996.
Rescher 1996 N. Rescher, Process Metaphysics, State University of New York Press,
Albany (N.Y.), 1996.
Rosado Haddock 1991 G.E. Rosado Haddock, "On Husserl's Distinction Between State of
Affairs (Sachverhalt) and Situation of Affairs (Sachlage)", in Seebohm,
Føllesdal and Mohanty 1991, pp. 35-46; republished in Hill and Rosado
Haddock 2000, pp. 253-262.
Schilpp 1944 P. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Open Court, 1944 (4th ed.
1971).
Schuhmann and Smith 1987 K. Schuhmann and B. Smith, "Questions: An Essay in
Daubertian Phenomenology", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
1987, pp. 353-84.
Seebohm, Føllesdal and Mohanty 1991 T.M. Seebohm, D. Føllesdal and J. N. Mohanty, eds.,
Phenomenology and the Formal Sciences, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1991.
Smith 1991 D.W. Smith 1991, "On Situations and States of Affairs", in Seebohm,
Føllesdal and Mohanty 1991, pp. 49-57.
Suszko 1968 R. Suszko, “Ontology in the Tractatus of L. Wittgenstein”, Notre Dame
Journal of Formal Logic, 1968, pp. 7-33.
Suszko 1975 R. Suszko, "Abolition of the Fregean Axiom", in Parikh 1975, pp. 169-239.
Suszko 1977 R. Suszko, “The Fregean Axiom and Polish Mathematical Logic in the
1920s”, in Studia Logica, 1977, pp. 151-55.
van Dalen 1994 D. van Dalen, Logic and Structure, Springer, Berlin 1994.
Vasyukov 1992 V. Vasyukov, “Fregean, Non-Fregean, Non-non-Fregean”, in Frege's and
Hilbert's Heritage in the XXth Century Logic, Philosophy and Mathematics,
(Abstracts), Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad State University, 1992, p. 23.

23
Wójcicki 1988 R. Wójcicki, Theory of Logical Calculi. Basic Theory of Consequence
Operations, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Wolniewicz 1968 B. Wolniewicz, Rzeczy i facty [Things and Facts], PWN [Polish Scientific
Publishers], Warsaw, 1968.
Wolniewicz 1985 B. Wolniewicz Ontologia sytuacij [Ontology of Situations], PWN [Polish
Scientific Publishers], Warsaw, 1985.
Wolniewicz 1982 B. Wolniewicz, "A Formal Ontology of Situations”, Studia Logica, 1982, pp.
381-413.
Wolniewicz 1982 B. Wolniewicz, “Logical Space and Metaphysical Systems”, Studia Logica,
1983, pp. 269-284.
Wolniewicz 1982 B. Wolniewicz, Logic and Metaphysics, Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne,
Warsaw 1999.

24