Edwina and Jerry R, ET
That's exactly my point - as you say: "Any ontology that is not designed for some purpose or intention has no purpose"
Yes. Ontolog Forum (the source of original notes I was addressing) has a very clear purpose: Represent knowledge about some subject in a logical form that could be used for computer applications. Jon Awbrey cited a book that applied Peirce's writings to architecture (both brick & mortar artifacts and computer software). I sent a copy of my reply to Peirce-List because I wanted to emphasize the relevance to 21st-century applications. ET
[Those who] reject and/or belittle any attempts to introduce and examine 'some purpose' ... have moved these theories and work into a zone that is buffered from and isolated from reality.
Yes. Every aspect of Peirce's logic, semeiotic, and phaneroscopy was inspired by and helps support his work in science, engineering, psychology, and language -- especially semantics and his thousands of definitions for the Century Dictionary and Baldwin's dictionary. It's no accident that his most profound work *followed* his years of analyzing language and writing definitions. JR
You said: "Any ontology that is not designed for some purpose or intention has no purpose." I must then ask: Why do you say, "The conclusion that a Seme could be a subject is not just false, it is horribly false... It contradicts and undermines Peirce's entire system of semeiotic." That is, how is ‘Seme as not-subject’ related to Peirce’s purpose or intention, if at all?
We have to distinguish the purpose of the overall system from the details of any particular part. For the overall purpose, the intros to EP Vol. 1 and to Writings Vol. 1 are very good. For later work, see the letter to William James (NEM 3.833-834, 1905),
But my opinion is that the paper on A New List of Categories is one of the most perfect gems in all philosophy. I have not been able to find any positive error in it. There is a good deal that was not then worked out; but the leading features were made out correctly.
In another letter to WJ (NEM 3.851, 1909),
Moreover, the system of Existential Graphs is the only system that does to perfection that which all logical algebras have aimed to do.
He acknowledged the fact that his system was always in development. Whenever he changed some of the details, he acknowledged which parts he modified. But he took pride in the consistency of the foundation over a period of more than 40 years. That is why the ambiguity in the word 'subject' must be resolved in a way that preserves the consistency of the foundation that Peirce claimed was solid. John
----------------------------- 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 .
