I really do not understand what you are up to. — Heiko

Yes. It does seem quite clear that you do not.

The terms "Firstness", "Secondness", and "Thirdness" allow one to say that there is also "Fourthness". And if there's such a thing as Fourthness, why not Fithness? How about A-Trillionth-Billionth-Six-Hundred-Forty-Seventhness?

It just makes no damn sense, woman. It's meaningless. Like, it's not real talk.

So let me ask you this: are you a human being? — Arcane Sandwich

You seem to misunderstand the rigor behind Peirce’s triadic categories. Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are not arbitrary—they are grounded in Peirce’s phenomenological exploration of how reality presents itself. The categories are exhaustive, not endlessly additive, because they describe the irreducible modes of being: possibility, interaction, and mediation.

Suggesting ‘Fourthness’, ect., overlooks the logic behind these distinctions. Peirce didn’t invent these categories as a playful exercise; they reflect the foundational structure of reality as understood through relationality. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve engaged directly with Peirce’s writings on this, such as The Categories in Detail or his Lectures on Pragmatism.”

And calling me 'woman' is not an appropriate way to encourage quality dialogue.

The diamond is a a real "thing": It stays in form if left alone, it is a solid body. — Heiko

Thank you, but that doesn't pertain to what we were doing in this exercise in logic.

or just express some of what you think — Metaphysician Undercover

There's clearly no need for me to post anymore under these circumstances, but thank you.

You're speaking to fellow humans on a Forum. You're also speaking to a machine when you speak to Claude. So, by necessity, it follows that you haven't figured out what I just said. But then I just don't know why your tone is rock-solid confident. — Arcane Sandwich

Believe it or not, there is confidence to be found in understanding uncertainty, but I realize that this idea is very foreign to most people, especially in Western culture.

One of the reasons I explore artificial intelligence is because it is very relevant to this topic and our future. Because of this, I became Microsoft certified, and I am an artificial intelligence researcher.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? I can't wrap my head around it, it's too abstract — Arcane Sandwich

If you would like to understand Thirdness better, perhaps there is some type of complex system you would like to explore. .... Are you familiar with Ilya Prigogine? ... Because of nominalism, time was excluded from classical science. There is a lot to be learned about that by studying Leibniz. The idea was, that for God, everything is there, eternally, so science was focused on static objects, and we inherited all of this in materialism. ... Descartes' philosophy played a decisive role in the development of Leibniz's thought, and much of Descartes 'thought' was based on nominalism's stance that only static, discrete, individual things exist, (per Ockham, otherwise God would not be omnipotent and be able to damn an individual sinner or save an individual saint). .... I have a whole series of learning videos on this topic, in case you are interested. It's all human history, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with 'opinions'. I have found that some people prefer watching videos over reading, so I made some. ... Anyway, Ilya Prigogine wrote a book called 'From Being to Becoming'. His work with dissipative structures and thermodynamics showed that temporal processes mean that existence and being is a necessarily open system (relational). A closed system becomes stagnant and dies. ... Next, you might want to explore the idea of autopoiesis. ... So, to get a 'feel' for what Thirdness is, combine all of that. ... The abstract philosophical and logic aspects of this can be difficult for many people to grasp.

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but it is centuries of history to cover, and time is of the essence in the work that I do.

I’ve discovered your site via your profile and will continue to delve ;-) — Wayfarer

Thanks. I look forward to reading your contributions to threads here.

I literally mean no offense by it. — Arcane Sandwich

No offense taken

I'm — Arcane Sandwich

I understand doubt quite well. As for whatever it is you are reading in me, perhaps that doubt has helped me through more than 50 years of research and study.

Or maybe I'm being naive. — ToothyMaw

Not at all.

No, that's not what I think. Why would you assume that about me? Why would you assume that I have ill intent? I'm being charitable towards you, am I not? Why would it be wrong for me to expect the same courtesy from you? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

I am not assuming that about you at all. I was just being clear. ... My experience has taught me that sometimes that is necessary when someone doesn't take the time to read or get to know the topic better before dismissing it. ... If that does not apply to you, then no worries.

what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me. — Arcane Sandwich

If you really think that I am trying to promote AI in my work, you are sorely mistaken, and there is no reason to discuss this further.

I got ChatGPT to tell me I solved the double-slit experiment once. Needless to say, it turned out to almost certainly be bullshit. — ToothyMaw

If you carefully and thoroughly review my work, you will see how right you are and that nominalism is the problem.

they are not aware of what it is exactly that they are doing, — Arcane Sandwich

You should carefully and thoroughly read it.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? — Arcane Sandwich

Did you read the link at the bottom of the post?

I am not able to continue this discussion right now (I'm working), but I hope you will read and explore more on your own.

judgment occupies a region on some sort of sweetness continuum. — ToothyMaw

The trickiness lies in the fact that what we call 'concrete' and 'abstract' are not binary but exist along a continuum. Sweet and sweetness, hard and hardness—these different facets of the same relational phenomena, depend on how we interact with them.

Think of how we know of a diamond's hardness. Hardness isn’t revealed in isolation but through an interaction—scratching a diamond against another material or measuring its resistance. This interplay demonstrates the relational nature of what might seem like a static property.

Hard and hardness might follow the same relational logic. Hard is often tied to an immediate sensory experience (Secondness), while hardness is a concept that emerges from systematic comparisons (Thirdness).

The 'hypo' static nature of 'hardness' is quite real, but a nominalist may say this is an unnecessary category (Thirdness) to consider.

Phaneroscopy includes this category in synechistic/phaneroscopic inquiry, phenomenology does not.

Nominalists might gravitate toward phenomenology because it aligns with analyzing discrete, immediate experiences. But phaneroscopy challenges us to consider continuity and relational emergence—how sweet is not isolated but tied to sweetness, and how hard relates to hardness through interactions that reveal their connections.

Habit in autopoietic momentum is a highly important aspect of Thirdness to be aware of. It reveals itself in all complex systems. Our neglect of understanding Thirdness is extremely dangerous. Nominalism is the cause of the blindness.


Something I wrote that might be helpful to read.
https://medium.com/@SarahCTyrrell/a-case-involving-claude-ai-b4b76bd6249e

I would have to buy them. Maybe this coming month when I get my check. — ToothyMaw

They are free to explore on those links, but I know they can be difficult to read without blowing up. And if you're anything like me, you'd want to highlight passages and make notes on the pages.

If any reader of this thread would like to explore Peirce's work, perhaps these links will help.

Writings of Charles S. Peirce: a chronological edition

The Rule of Reason; The Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce

He’s rather well-known for the questions he presents his dialectical companions, the lack of relevant response from one or another of them, would probably make him think twice when it comes to associating himself with philosophers in general. — Mww

Lol ... ok :wink:

Socrates would object in the most strenuous of terms. — Mww

I invite Socrates to join in on my thread about hypostatic abstraction, precisive abstraction, and proper and improper negation. :sparkle:

The problems with Peirce's triadic model become evident in the work of those who have followed him, and actually employ it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I also want to mention here that it is absolutely necessary to study Peirce and not "those who have followed him". It is a severe problem in the arena of Peirce studies that there are all sorts of 'gleanings' of snippets of his work to support ideas that would cause him to jump out of his grave and beat someone over the head.

I used to be on the Peirce Society Listserv, but it didn't take long for me to discover that it was basically ruled by a couple of academics who were clearly mixing up understandings of 'embodied'. Their Cartesian background was bleeding into Peirce's work. ... I explained that I could not accept that and left. They still send me Peirce Society emails and invites, and I appreciate that, but the Cartesian blood was more than I was willing to expose myself to.

I’m obviously not MU, but I asked first. — Mww

So sorry. ... I did not mean to overlook your request.

I do delve into this topic deeply in my essays. I will say that one of the reasons I started the thread about hypostatic abstraction, precisive abstraction, and proper and improper negation is to hopefully demonstrate some of what I write about.

Nominalism is deeply ingrained in Western culture (and the now-global-world in general), and it is very difficult for most to step outside of it and look at its history and influence when they are so influenced by it themselves due to 'thought as a system'. ... We are within what we are trying to examine. Nominalism tends to evoke the idea that the examination is objective. It is a case of recursive smoke and mirrors.

Again, I have written about this extensively. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it in threads here. It's just not a productive use of the forum.

edit: sorry for presuming you to be male.

edit 2: fixed the language I used. — ToothyMaw

No worries, and no need to mention it. I am quite used to that happening when I engage in intellectual discussions that are not in person.

"Sweet" is a concrete concept, whilst "sweetness " is an abstract concept. — RussellA

I like where you are going with this...

What is it about the word 'sweet' that makes it a concrete concept?

Do you mean that we can measure 'sweet', but we cannot measure 'sweetness'?

Can we measure 'hard' in the case of the diamond? Or are we more likely to measure hardness?

See, it's trickier than it seems at first glance.

You seem to have a strong prejudice against nominalism. Why? — Metaphysician Undercover

In the past, I have learned to not go down the nominalism road on this forum. This time, I would like to stay a while.

I can either point you to my essays or post the very long essays in entirety here. Which would you prefer?

I imagine that different readers of this thread will gravitate towards one of the three examples over the others, but there is something that all three examples have in common. ... What they have in common is where we need to focus our investigation into the rewards and pitfalls of hypostatic abstraction.

I believe that phenomenology, especially as developed by Derrida, provides a better ontology of objects by allowing that the sign is the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you ever seen this video? It's been around a while, but no longer rising to the top. ... It talks about some of what you are referring to.
https://youtu.be/GITVPh7GVSE?si=5pgDM9rizZ6rAvyA

Phenomenology is definitely not my cup of tea, due to it being historically influenced by nominalism that was nurtured in the arms of religious theology. ... And Bakhtin had his own religious undertones, but as I mentioned previously, I do not see any of my favorite philosophers as being the end all be all. I have found what I think is a golden trail of breadcrumbs that travels through their combination.

If you decide to watch the video, perhaps it will provide more clues as to where (as the video puts it) I part company with phenomenology. ... There is a second part, a continuation of the video, if you should discover that it interests you.

Other than that, I think Mapping the Medium‘s response is pretty good. — Wayfarer

Thank you. I seem to remember our own discussions from long ago as being quite fruitful. ... Funny, how some us old-timers circle back around and land here again after venturing out into the wilds to gather more for all of us to chew on.

A model of duck depends on what we observe and know of ducks. For some anti-realists, also ducks depend on us. — jkop

Yes. ... This model of a duck is not so much a duck as it is a human-reflected duck(?). When we filter anything through human perception, we attach characteristics and behaviors that to it that are not at all the same as through the perception of a duck.

Have you ever had someone in your life tell you that you've 'changed', and later both of you discovering that it wasn't that you had changed so much but that the person had never actually invested the time and energy to 'know' you better. That person, in the interest of limited perception time, had refected their own biases into the conclusions they had reached.

If I had a dollar for every time I have been cordial towards a man and he took it as my being attracted to him. .... But that doesn't mean that I will stop being cordial. THAT is who I am, not the woman coming on to him that he has modeled in his mind based on his past experiences or hopeful future ones.

I believe that phenomenology, especially as developed by Derrida, — Metaphysician Undercover

As for phenomenology, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty, etc, ... We could easily fill up another thread on what I have to say about that. :wink:

Here's a link to some notes I wrote some time back. .... Phenomenology or Phaneroscopy?

This unnecessary separation produces an unnecessary layer between the sign and the interpretation of the sign, the unnecessary layer being "the object". — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you tell me what written work of his you are referring to?

As for Peirce's 'representamen' and triadic model, we need to recognize that he is pointing to what the sign means to the interpreter. ... It does take on a different identity than just considering what some might refer to as a specific ideal form.

For instance, here is an image that can mean different things to different cultures. ...



The 'object' is exactly the same, but the 'representamen' has a different identity.

I seem to be having trouble posting an image. I put the link to the photo as requested, but it's not showing.

Perhaps this will work...

The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.
— Mapping the Medium

See, I was somehow (I have no idea how) agreeing with you up until there (though I did not entirely understand everything that you said), but it's this last part that's the "deal breaker", for me (and I'm not even sure what I mean by that. Is this a situation of negotiation or not?). — Arcane Sandwich

Here are a few articles you might enjoy reading....

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa010/5856030

https://scitechdaily.com/mit-scientists-shed-new-light-on-the-critical-brain-connections-that-define-consciousness/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31365-6

https://www.ovid.com/journals/nebior/abstract/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104810~turings-cascade-instability-supports-the-coordination-of-the

One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'.
— Mapping the Medium

Is it? Are you speaking of Thirdness as Charles Sanders Peirce understood it, as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.
— Mapping the Medium

I don't understand this either. Can you explain what you mean here, in plain and simple English, and as objectively as you possibly can? Try to be as charitable as possible to my intellect here, I'm having a really difficult time understanding some of the more abstract notions that you are speaking about. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot 'can' any of this, but I hope you will consider learning a little more on your own about semiosis. Without engaging in dialogue with you in person, I am unable to meet you where you are and effectively explain all of this to you in the way that you say you need it explained. ... Your intellect seems to be functioning just fine.

Value judgements are analog; — alleybear

And in these examples, how would you reach those value judgements? How would you come to your conclusions?

But is 'hardness' a static, intrinsic property of a diamond?

One more example, and then we'll just stick with these three and go from there. ...

The sun is bright. ... The sun has brightness.

Is brightness a static, intrinsic property of the sun?

Let's add another example ...

Is hardness a static, intrinsic property of a diamond? ... Does a diamond possess hardness?

I think we need to distinguish between doubting the means, and doubting the end. Notice that this passage takes the ends (desires) for granted, so that the doubt being talked about is doubt of the means. — Metaphysician Undercover

No doubt. ... Thank you for bringing this up. ... I do want to point out again that to understand Peirce is to understand that he tries to walk the reader through what he suspects is their perceived 'notions' and then circles back around (there's that synechism in action) to point out aspects to reconsider. ... This is why the word 'architectonic' is so often used to describe Peirce's work. ... This was one of his first essays published in 'The Monist'. ... Again, understanding the constraints and environment of the time helps to understand why and how he formatted his essays the way that he did. ... It's important to also understand that William James was his best friend. And since Charles was ostracized from the academic community, James was helping him financially. James was a nominalist, and Peirce saw the errors in nominalism, so he walked a fine line with his essays. .... Please take Peirce as a whole, without dissecting and reducing his work and potentially misunderstanding his aims.

Ah, yes. Great quote. :sparkle:

If you didn't already gather this from my previous post, I think of myself as an expressed vehicle of communication by the whole.

If all is 'Mind', and matter is effete mind, and all returns to from where it came, 'Mind' needs to generate and express what it cognizes via causality of semiosis. .. One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'. Your genetic and epigenetic history carries habits that are combined in new ways. Add in some new information from the previous events and interactions of signs, and you become the unique sign that you then express to the world. ... All that I am, and all that I carry in genetic and epigenetic memory is an expressed sign to other living beings, and encountering otherness is as crucial as my participation. ... As they encounter me, and I encounter them, utterences or not, the experience is yet another sign to feed into the generating momentum of 'Mind'. Yes, events and participation are crucial, but with no more emphasis on 'individual' beings and events (as is the individualism of nominalism) than what is cascadingly and eventfully accomplished for the whole. ..... The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.

Consciousness does not arise from the 'collective'. 'Collective' is a nominalistic word. A collective is merely a 'collection" of separate individuals, with no overarching narrative. How can there be no overarching narrative when you carry all of that genetic and epigenetic history?

You mentioned that you have no relationship to your table, but don't you? As effete mind, it still serves a purpose in your life. It is a sign of where you dine, where you work, the place and space it takes up in your home. Your memories of who gathered there with you. The time you bumped your leg on it and learned to be more careful. Someone designed it. Someone either built it or the machinery that crafted it. It carries all of that and more, and you choose to have it in your home. When others come to your home and see it along with you and your other possessions, the signs communicate to them more about who you are.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.

About Bakhtin, I'll just say it: when people explain Bakhtin to me, I feel like I'm not understanding even half of the things that people are trying to explain to me. Like, there's some parts that I get, there's other parts that I even agree with, but then there are some parts that I just don't understand. — Arcane Sandwich

You and many other people. He is notoriously difficult to understand (and especially for a nominalistic culture!), and it doesn't help that for so long there was confusion about who within the 'Bakhtin Circle' actually wrote what. But when it comes to 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act', Bakhtin definitely wrote it.

Bakhtin's concept of dialogism is an influencing aspect in my development of Evrostics. ... Dialogue, and the interaction of the multiple voices brought in by any being's genetics, culture, and biological environment (epigenetics) is an expression and extension of semiosis by way of utterances, developing and creating meaning that is more than the sum of its concretized word 'parts'. This influences us personally, socially, and culturally. In Evrostics, I highlight dialogue as a catalyst in the recursive and reciprocal nature of understanding. Dialogue isn't just a medium for exchanging ideas but an active process that shapes and transforms our perceptions and relationships. ... As for literary theory, Bakhtin worked to explain how this is expressed in the written word.

Whitehead was more inclined toward nominalism in that his process philosophy emphasized the particular, concrete experiences (actual occasions).

Bakhtin, on the other hand, leaned more toward a holistic and integrated view that goes beyond nominalism. His focus on the interaction of different voices and perspectives highlights the emergent, interconnected nature of reality.

I hope this explanation helps.

And it sounds more like a "process philosophy" — Arcane Sandwich

When it comes to Bakhtin, it helps to focus on dialogue as a dynamic, reciprocally recursive, action, and as a sort of embodied medium that brings in all of the cultural and biological influences of those engaged in it. ... On the surface, it may resemble 'some' aspects of Whitehead, but Whitehead was more nominalistic than Bakhtin, and Bakhtin actually covered more 'breadth' of what the momentum of a lived existence entails. ... He is another one than takes time and study to understand, but I think the reward is worth it.

Thank you for your having taken the time to consider and respond to my thoughts.