List, Jerry R.,:
I am curious about the origin of the quotes:
�almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is meaningless gibberish�
�made up of words that define each other with no conception being reached.� Or else, claimed Peirce,
�the conception that is reached is absurd.��
These are very powerful claims that separate the conceptualization of reality / pragmaticism from vast domains of philosophy and theology.
Historically, this brings the relationships between the conceptualization of a mathematical variable and physical claims about nature / natural catalogues of categories into question.
So, what is the meaning of these assertions (if any?) in terms of modern day science?
More specifically, my comment is a reflection on the use and abuse of the term �ontology� in philosophy. In particular, it should be noted that the chemical table of elements (TOE), the present day ur-source of scientific catalogues of categories (ontologies) was a foundation for many aspects of CSP logical development of signs / symbols. Although the modern day TOE has undergone further developments in form and structure, the rational for it�s ontological existence remains unchanged for over a century and is scientifically and philosophically non-problematic. The TOE is firmly established as the ontological origin of (non-prime) matter. The extension of TOE by chemical illations to compounds and biochemical �handedness� is standard textbook stuff. The logical form of this extension is not a universal or recursive application of a variable, but is, the reference subset of TOE members, a step-by-step construction of emergent identities.
in other words, chemical �universals� do not exist in the sense of physical or mathematical variables because each chemical element is indivisible. The name of a legisign is an identity that associates quali-signs with indices and hence with dicisigns and the illations that generate the legisign. This tautology is constructed without invoking the concept of prime matter.
In short, how are these CSP - induced conundrums resolved by physical philosophy? mathematical philosophy?
In particular, is that modern physics, with its focus on Kantian a priori and mathematical variables of energy and mass, problematically lacks meta-physical ground? Is this one aspect of CSP�s adoption of the Hegelian view of �chemism�? (see, �Real Process� by John W. Burbidge, 1996) and with its intrinsic reliance on the copulative logic of
" sin-sign <�> qualisign � and �sin-sign <�> legisign�?
Thus, it appears to me that this thread goes far deeper than it first appears.
The phrase
�made up of words that define each other with no conception being reached..�
is a novel and deep critique of the tautological usage of physical units in a philosophy of physics grounded in the Kantian a priori of space and time. In my opinion, it also describes the abstract nature of mathematical set theory as it manifests itself in Husserlian phenomenology.
Cheers
Jerry
Dear list:
In �Peirce's Pragmatism: The Design for Thinking�, Chiasson follows up a section on Scotus, (thisness, whatness, universals, general laws, qualitative essences) with the following:
�Do you understand what Peirce meant when he said that �almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is meaningless gibberish�?....When Peirce writes that the propositions are meaningless gibberish, he follows up this claim by saying that these propositions are �made up of words that define each other with no conception being reached.� Or else, claimed Peirce, �the conception that is reached is absurd.��
Best,
Jerry R
-----------------------------
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 .
