Jon wrote:
"So it's perfectly okay to say that relations exist in the world and
(062215-1)
you can even say that thirdness is the essence of triadic relations,
meaning that all triadic relations have a property in common that
you might as well call “thirdness” as anything else, but when you
turn to saying that thirdness inheres in one of the places of the
relation and not the others then that is a matter of another sort
and it does not automatically follow. Here we risk what I have
called the “Fallacy Of Misplaced Essence” (FOME) and avoiding
that takes quite a bit more care."
I agree.
The following diagram may help us avoid FOME. That is, the term
"thirdness" applies to the whole 3-node network, not to Interpretant alone,
as some may be tempted to assume.
f g
Object ------> Representamen ------> Interpretant
|
^
|
|
|________________________________|
h
In other words, "thirdness" to me is the name given to the irreducible
triadicity depicted in this figure consisting of 3 nodes and 3 edges that
satisfy the commutative condition, which I conveniently represent as f x g
= h, where f = sign production, g = sign interpretation, h = validation,
grounding, proof, information flow, etc.
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
> Helmut, List,
>
> A day in the yard meditatively pulling weeds helped me to clear my head and
> I think I can see where this all went agley. I still think that what Harry
> wrote is an apt statement of a critical point in Peirce's theory of signs
> and I'm sorry if I stepped on it with my nonce-ens words about “ontologism”
> so I'll put off the long version explanation of that to another time.
>
> On Edwina's prompting I did take the trouble to look the word up
> and I see that it really was already in use, however obscurely,
> at least to a non-mediæval scholar like me:
>
> ☞ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11257a.htm
>
> “Ontologism is an ideological system which maintains that God and Divine
> ideas
> are the first object of our intelligence and the intuition of God the
> first act
> of our intellectual knowledge.”
>
> Although I can dimly see, or imagine a link between that ideology
> and the ideology I was trying to criticize I think it's probably
> best to avoid conflating the two ideas and so I'll go back to
> using words like “essentialism” that I've used before, as in
> this record of an earlier discussion:
>
> ☞ Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism
> Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
> (
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essentialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle-way-between/
> )
>
> A famous physicist whose name I've forgotten
> once said something to the following effect:
>
> “An -ism never did much for science, except for prism.”
>
> To prism I'd add pragmatism and maybe schism but the point is that
> I almost always speak of isms in a critical vein, as emphases that
> have closed out their complementary emphases or as ideologies that
> have taken their initial idea a bridge too far. So I was thinking
> of the series ontology, ontologist, ontologism on analogy with the
> series science, scientist, scientism.
>
> So it's perfectly okay to say that relations exist in the world and
> you can even say that thirdness is the essence of triadic relations,
> meaning that all triadic relations have a property in common that
> you might as well call “thirdness” as anything else, but when you
> turn to saying that thirdness inheres in one of the places of the
> relation and not the others then that is a matter of another sort
> and it does not automatically follow. Here we risk what I have
> called the “Fallacy Of Misplaced Essence” (FOME) and avoiding
> that takes quite a bit more care.
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
