“An -ism never did much for science, except for prism.” LOL 😊 Reminds me of the Coppola line from Apocalypse, "'If' is the middle term of 'life'" > Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:50:31 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1 > > Helmut, List, > > A day in the yard meditatively pulling weeds helped me to clear my head and > I think I can see where this all went agley. I still think that what Harry > wrote is an apt statement of a critical point in Peirce's theory of signs > and I'm sorry if I stepped on it with my nonce-ens words about “ontologism” > so I'll put off the long version explanation of that to another time. > > On Edwina's prompting I did take the trouble to look the word up > and I see that it really was already in use, however obscurely, > at least to a non-mediæval scholar like me: > > ☞ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11257a.htm > > “Ontologism is an ideological system which maintains that God and Divine ideas > are the first object of our intelligence and the intuition of God the first > act > of our intellectual knowledge.” > > Although I can dimly see, or imagine a link between that ideology > and the ideology I was trying to criticize I think it's probably > best to avoid conflating the two ideas and so I'll go back to > using words like “essentialism” that I've used before, as in > this record of an earlier discussion: > > ☞ Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism > Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between > ( > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essentialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle-way-between/ > > ) > > A famous physicist whose name I've forgotten > once said something to the following effect: > > “An -ism never did much for science, except for prism.” > > To prism I'd add pragmatism and maybe schism but the point is that > I almost always speak of isms in a critical vein, as emphases that > have closed out their complementary emphases or as ideologies that > have taken their initial idea a bridge too far. So I was thinking > of the series ontology, ontologist, ontologism on analogy with the > series science, scientist, scientism. > > So it's perfectly okay to say that relations exist in the world and > you can even say that thirdness is the essence of triadic relations, > meaning that all triadic relations have a property in common that > you might as well call “thirdness” as anything else, but when you > turn to saying that thirdness inheres in one of the places of the > relation and not the others then that is a matter of another sort > and it does not automatically follow. Here we risk what I have > called the “Fallacy Of Misplaced Essence” (FOME) and avoiding > that takes quite a bit more care. > > 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 .
