Sung, List, Like I keep saying, but maybe some folks haven't heard it yet, the main problem with the diagram you keep drawing is that it does not represent an irreducibly triadic sign relation at all. What it does represent is the decomposition of the function or dyadic relation h as a composition f o g of two other functions or dyadic relations f and g. But decomposability is just another word for reducibility and so your diagram depicts the very opposite of the property you keep saying it depicts.
Regards, Jon On 6/22/2015 2:57 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Jon wrote: "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." I agree. The following diagram may help us avoid FOME. That is, the term "thirdness" applies to the whole 3-node network, not to Interpretant alone, as some may be tempted to assume. f g Object ------> Representamen ------> Interpretant | ^ | | |_______________________________________| h In other words, "thirdness" to me is the name given to the irreducible triadicity depicted in this figure consisting of 3 nodes and 3 edges that satisfy the commutative condition, which I conveniently represent as f x g = h, where f = sign production, g = sign interpretation, h = validation, grounding, proof, information flow, etc. All the best. Sung On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: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
-- 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 .
