Hi Jon,
Thank you. I really appreciate your taking time to look at these
universal category assertions.
I am serious about trying to test and improve the assignments made so
far. It would be fantastic for knowledgeable and committed Peirce
scholars to weight in on some of these assessments. If we are to create
a workable knowledge graph or ontology based on Peircean concepts --
something I think is eminently doable -- it will be important to have
thoughtful students of Peirce to comment and suggest. I have a naive
hope such might materialize someday.
Edwina also provided some very thoughtful comments. I request you look
to that separate thread for my more detailed comments.
Thanks again.
Mike
On 3/8/2021 7:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
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
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:40 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
<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
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896847.pdf>
[3] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf
<https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf>
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
