BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } John - I like your terms and yes, Peirce has indeed used all of them. My question is: What would you definition be of a 'sign'? You use it often in the chart but it has no definition.
Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Sun 02/04/17 10:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On 4/2/2017 4:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > imitation is so central that perhaps a case can be made > for a more accurate representation of what we really mean. I certainly agree. But I would make a distinction between Peirce's fundamental terminology and the open-ended variety of terms that can be explained in terms of the fundamentals. I have no objection to using his system to define 'imitation' or any other word that may be useful. In my article "Signs and Reality", I was addressing readers who have been using an open-ended variety of terminology from several millennia of philosophy to design ontologies for computer systems. I was trying to make several points: 1. The philosophical terminology is large and growing. It was developed by many different authors, who often use the terms in diverse, sometimes inconsistent ways. 2. The short book I cited (by David Armstrong) was addressed to *graduate students* in philosophy. But most computer scientists who need to use ontology have little background in philosophy. They would not read such a book, and they would not learn enough from it to use those words precisely. 3. However, everybody who uses an applied ontology knows and uses some notation for logic (or a computer notation that has a well-defined logical foundation). 4. As a pioneer in modern logic, Peirce developed terminology that is compatible with the versions of logic used for computer systems. It provides a broader and more systematic foundation for defining the categories of applied ontologies. 5. Therefore, my goal in that article was to extract a convenient subset of Peirce's terminology that could be taught to students who know some notation for logic, but have little or no training in philosophy. 6. My claim is that Peirce's triple trichotomy (attached table), together with any notation for logic that students already know, is sufficient for teaching a course on applied ontology. (Note that I replaced 5 of the terms with more familiar terms that Peirce used in other writings.) I would hope that students would continue to study more by Peirce and other philosophers. But I believe that applied ontology on a Peircean foundation would be a more solid basis than what they are studying today. See http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf [1] . John Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jfsowa.com%2Fpubs%2Fsigns.pdf
----------------------------- 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 .