Ontologism isn't a 'concocted' term; it has a specific meaning. Therefore,
when you declared that
" For the past 15 years or so, unfortunately,
I've watched the "fashion of ontologism" (FOO) obscure his
central insights. "... in response to Harry Proctor's
"A sign is only a sign to the extent it is construed or interpreted as
> a sign."...
It appeared to me, at least, as if you (and possibly Harry Proctor but that
is debatable as his statement was too brief for a conclusion) were moving
into the realm of Saussurian semiology, a realm confined purely to the human
conceptual, and particularly, within the subjectivism of postmodernism. Both
of these are explicity non-Peircean. As Gary Richmond and others pointed
out - Peircean semiosis is ontological, in that semiosis (sign production)
in all its basic triadic relational functions, produces 'existential
beings', produces realities - not simply mental concepts - but physical and
biological realities, aka, ontological realities.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Peirce List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 4:16 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Helmut, List,
Well, I see that my flippant remarks are likely to be mis-interpreted,
so I'll try to avert any mis-apprehensions before we go flying off on
a tangent that is not really essential to understanding the theory of
relations or its application to semiotics, inquiry, pragmatism, etc.
I concocted the term "ontologism" here to describe what I've elsewhere
called "absolutism", in the sense of using absolute terms way past the
point when it has become clear that relative terms are what's required.
I've also called that "essentialism" and would call it "monadicism" if
that weren't almost certain to be misunderstood.
So I hope it's clear that I'm not inditing any brand of of realism,
empirical, platonic, scholastic, or otherwise under this complaint.
The important thing here is how we decide when the phenomena at issue,
or any subject matters, are adequately covered by monadic predicates,
in their proper, non-vacuous use, and when it is time to call in the
resources of higher adic relative terms.
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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
>> 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
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
.
-----------------------------
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
