Helmut, List, Well, I see that my flippant remarks are likely to be mis-interpreted, so I'll try to avert any mis-apprehensions before we go flying off on a tangent that is not really essential to understanding the theory of relations or its application to semiotics, inquiry, pragmatism, etc.
I concocted the term "ontologism" here to describe what I've elsewhere called "absolutism", in the sense of using absolute terms way past the point when it has become clear that relative terms are what's required. I've also called that "essentialism" and would call it "monadicism" if that weren't almost certain to be misunderstood. So I hope it's clear that I'm not inditing any brand of of realism, empirical, platonic, scholastic, or otherwise under this complaint. The important thing here is how we decide when the phenomena at issue, or any subject matters, are adequately covered by monadic predicates, in their proper, non-vacuous use, and when it is time to call in the resources of higher adic relative terms. Regards, Jon On 6/20/2015 2:42 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, Harry, List, Is ontologism really the problem? John Deely says, that relations are ontological (so also the triadic relations). Does the FOO claim, that concepts (eg. mind-relations of relations) are not a part of reality? But to say, that concepts are part of reality, even in inanimate nature there are concepts too, or even to say, that maybe conceptuality is a synonym for reality, would be a kind of ontologism that is in accord with Peirce, or not? Best, Helmut "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote: Harry, List, Yes, that is the core idea of Peirce's approach to semiotics, critical to his theory of inquiry and the whole perspective of pragmatism. For the past 15 years or so, unfortunately, I've watched the "fashion of ontologism" (FOO) obscure his central insights. I can but hope that the days of FOO are numbered and will quickly fade into fadish oblivion. Regards, Jon On 6/20/2015 6:51 AM, Harry Procter wrote: > A sign is only a sign to the extent it is construed or interpreted as > a sign. This interpretation connects the sign vehicle with the object. > The three parts are interdependent and only assume their identity in > the context of the three. A truly triadic systemic formulation. > Best, > Harry Procter > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] >> Sent: 19 June 2015 20:40 >> To: Helmut Raulien >> Cc: Peirce List >> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory . 1 >> >> Helmut, List, >> >> I wasn't completely sure about the meaning of your question: >> >> • "Are interpretants an own class?" >> >> Is "own" a translation of "eigen" maybe? >> >> At any rate I went with my best guess and took you to be asking whether >> interpretants (and the other two classes) were ontologically distinctive in >> some way. I rewrote my last reply as a blog post with this interpretation >> in mind: >> >> • Relations & Their Relatives : 9 >> ( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/19/relations-their-relatives-9/ ) >> >> Please let me know if my reading of your sense is right or not. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
