Re: SUO: RE: Ontology, Epistemology, Semiotics
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Mike Pool wrote:
> Cathy,
>
> I'm one of the Peircean unwashed and hence appreciate the attempt at a
simple example. Could you say a bit more about how this example
illuminates or exemplifies the notion of Thirdness? I'm still a bit
confused. After all, couldn't I say more about GIVINGEVENT001, e.g.,
(date GIVINGEVENT001 D), (eventOccursAt GIVINGEVENT001 E), etc,, and
wouldn't this then involve an implicit quartic, quintic, etc. relation of
identity? So why does this demonstrate Thirdness as opposed to, say,
Fourthness or Fifthness or whatever?
Hi Mike,
Good argument!
Others have been saying this in their own way, but the way I would put it
is that you could add (date GIVINGEVENT001 D) and posit a quaternary
relation of identity but you don't have to. Instead you could make do with
(the more clumsy):
(giver GIVINGEVENT001 A)
(givee GIVINGEVENT001 C)
(gift GIVINGEVENT002 B)
(date GIVINGEVENT002 D)
(equals GIVINGEVENT001 GIVINGEVENT002)
Note that no further reduction can be performed, though, since we need the
identity relation to be transitive and transitivity is itself a triadic
relation.
Apologies to all on the list who are totally sick of three-ness.
Cathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
download OpenCyc at http://www.opencyc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------