SUO: Re: Foundlings Of Ontology

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

JS = John Sowa
RM = Robert Marty

RM: Slip of the pen or not?

RM, quoting JS:

    | Peirce also applied his trichotomy to subdivide these subfields.
    | In analyzing the techniques of logical reasoning, he observed that
    | deduction exemplifies Firstness because it depends only on the syntax
    | of propositions.  Induction exemplifies Secondness because it depends on
    | a dyadic relation between propositions and reality.  In looking for the
    | missing third, he discovered the principle of abduction, which generates
    | new hypotheses, which are further tested by the techniques of deduction
    | and induction.

RM, citing C.S. Peirce:

CP 2.85: "Originality, or Firstness, is another of my Categories."

CP 2.96: "This probational adoption of the hypothesis was an Abduction.
          An Abduction is Originary in respect to being the only kind
          of argument which starts a new idea."

CP 2.89: "Obsistence (suggesting obviate, object, obstinate, obstacle, insistence,
          resistance, etc.) is that wherein secondness differs from firstness;  or,
          is that element which taken in connection with Originality, makes one thing
          such as another compels it to be."

CP 2.96: "Deduction is Obsistent in respect to being the only kind of argument
          which is compulsive"

CP 2.89: "Transuasion (suggesting translation, transaction, transfusion, transcendental, etc.)
          is mediation, or the modification of firstness and secondness by thirdness, taken
          apart from the secondness and firstness;  or, is being in creating Obsistence"

CP 2.96: "A Transuasive Argument, or Induction, is an Argument which sets out from a hypothesis,
          resulting from a previous Abduction, and from virtual predictions, drawn by Deduction,
          of the results of possible experiments, and having performed the experiments, concludes
          that the hypothesis is true in the measure in which those predictions are verified, this
          conclusion, however, being held subject to probable modification to suit future experiments."

Robert Marty opens up a very wide diverticulum here,
the issue of "Peirce's Categories" (PC, again), but
it is one that I have personally learned to avoid,
indeed, I have taken a vow of moratorium upon it,
until such time as this week's modern age has
come more thoroughly to understand that CSP
was an "utterly relational thinker", one
of best and last that we have yet seen,
and that his Categories, as he put them
to work, were not the brands of Absolutes
that one is accustomed, indeed, habituated
to see as one looks further backward in time,
but require to be comprehended only within the
working framework of his "logic of relatives" (LOR).
I will leave John Sowa to wriggle out as best he can --
what usually happens next is that folks start battling
about the 1st-ness of 3rd-ness, the 3rd-ness of 1st-ness,
and who's on 1st, and who stole Homer's platitudes, and so on.
But at least it brings up an interesting collection of readings ...

So I will make my retreat to reflect on that,

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤