Mike, List: Thanks for sharing your paper and subsequent exchanges about it, as well as your book chapter. Indeed, Peirce's universal categories permeate much of his work, including his architectonic classification of the sciences. I have found it helpful to remind myself from time to time that they are first and foremost *phenomenological *(or *phaneroscopic*) categories, the irreducible elements of anything that could be present to the mind.
Although there is certainly a sense in which chance corresponds to 1ns and continuity to 3ns, I suggest that more appropriate counterparts of actuality for 2ns are possibility for 1ns and (conditional) necessity for 3ns as shown on line T10 of your Table 6-2, since these are likewise *modalities*. Chance for 1ns goes with (exceptionless) law for 2ns and habit-taking for 3ns (as on line T14), while I tend to associate continuity for 3ns with discreteness for 2ns and indefiniteness for 1ns. I could also quibble with some of the other details (including your choice of names), but I generally agree with your descriptions of "monads," "particulars," and "generals" as paradigmatic manifestations of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns. I further agree that matter aligns with 2ns (as on line T15), but I see ideas as 1ns (as on line T36) and life as 3ns (not in table). Of course, any of these assignments ultimately depend on how one defines the terms, in what context, and for what purpose. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:40 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Given the number of questions regarding Peirce's universal categories in > relation to my hierarchy paper, I have split out my response to them > separately and have renamed the thread. I will follow up this thread with a > separate thread on Bruce's 'twisted, closed loop' idea. > > It is clear that Peirce's research and method of inquiry were based on > what he proudly classed as an 'architectonic' [1]. For me, it is one of the > most appealing aspects of Peirce since it reflects his commitment to > applying consistent logic and methods in all intellectual endeavors. > Pragmatism has perhaps survived as the most often-cited basis of Peirce's > architectonic. I agree with this in the context of praxis, but I have > suspected for many years that the root fount of Peirce's approach is in his > triadism, what he himself jocularly called his 'triadomany' [2]. > > His universal categories are the root of the root. When last published > [3], I had assembled up more than sixty instances where Peirce applied > triadic splits; I have perhaps two dozen more needing a published update. > All representations across these examples have a context to derive their > meaning. Yet, still, there is a character across the categories of > Firstness (1ns), Secondness (2ns) and Thirdness (3ns) that bring a unique > feel and sense for each, generalizations emerging from the vague. > > An author's release of my book chapter on Peirce's universal categories is > available for free from my Web site [3]. Table 6-2 and its table notes, in > particular, provide a flavor for how Perice's triadic categories were > expressed by him in scores of examples. For example, in the case of > 'reality', I would surmise Peirce to describe it as 'chance' (1ns), > actuality (2ns), and 'continuity' (3ns). More than 60 other examples and > variants are provided in the table. > > In the case for the KBpedia Knowledge Ontology > <https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/> (KKO), the context is 'knowledge > representation'. That scope is close to being the same as 'everything there > is', but the expression and organization need to be geared to logical > constructs that are consistently used so as to be able to be reasoned over. > > In the KKO context, the triadic structure is 'monads' (1ns), 'particulars' > (2ns) and 'generals' (3ns). 'Monads' are the possible ideas or attributes > about things, but they are unexpressed. I have also called monads > 'unrealized building blocks'. They are pregnant with potential, but as > monads are the pure qualities, not yet embodied. Of course, once you try > to represent or capture the idea of something like 'redness', you have > given it expression so that it is no longer 1ns. Monads in the KKO context > are best scoped as the unconnected relations between things and the > unembodied attributes of things. > > 'Particulars' (2ns) are the events and entities relevant to the scope of > the current domain. Every particular is individuated. How to categorize > 'attributes' into 'particulars', 'particulars' into 'generals', and > 'generals' into more abstract 'generals' is the motivator for my paper on > hierarchy. > > 'Generals' (3ns) are the types, classes, generalizations, abstractions, > rules, laws and processes relating to the nature of reality and > interactions. Thinking and continuity are 'generals'. Particulars are a > predominant focus of generalizations. Because KBpedia is an interacting > amalgam of typologies, aside from the 200 or so concepts in KKO, 58,000 of > the remaining concepts are all organized under the KKO 'generals' branch. > However, specific individuals in the knowledge graph may reference the KKO > concepts under the 'particulars' branch, and reasoning may occur across > attributes and predicates using the 'monads' branch. These latter two > options are nascent in KBpedia, but have not yet been tested and > demonstrated. Now that our first task to create a Peircean knowledge > representation with KBpedia is usable, I hope (and welcome others!) to > begin applying such tests. > > I do not associate 1ns with 'matter, life and ideas' as Ravi may be > implying. Rather, the associates I see are matter (2ns), life (2ns) and > ideas (3ns). Monads do not have a position or representation in space. They > are unexpressed, unembodied attributes or relations. Absolute chance and > possibilities are 'monads'. > > While perhaps it has been useful for me to be the primary editor of > KBpedia and interpreter of Peirce in relation to knowledge representation, > I think more Peirce and knowledge representation afficiandos need to > contribute. It would be fantastic to see knowledge graphs suitable for > testing and refining computer programs in Peircean triadic logic and > abductive logic, as examples. > > At any rate, I hope this note or the paper reference [3] may help you > understand my take on Peirce's universal categories. > > Best, Mike > [1] http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/triadomany > [2] Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1891. “The Architecture of Theories”. *The > Monist* 1, no. 2: 161–76. See > https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896847.pdf > [3] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
