Re: SUO: RE: Ontology, Epistemology, Semiotics
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Pierre Grenon wrote:
>
> > I find this problematic as well. Though I think dealing with events will
always
> > end up in muddy tricks. The problem with them is that you can always claim
that
> > the determinations you want to add are essential but not distinguishing
> > characteristics, whereas that there is a gift a giver and a givee would be.
In
> > that case you end up with three binary relations and it's not clear that
you
> > can make justice to the ternary claim.
> > However it seems that this is true also in hogher arity claims: John is
between
> > Mary and Rosamonde according to Wilbert. It does not seem reducible to any
> > combination of ternary claims by the standards of the analysis of ternary
> > claims themselves.
>
> (isBetween BETWEENNESS_RELATION001 John)
> (delimitsBetweenness BETWEENNESS_RELATION001 Mary)
> (delimitsBetweenness BETWEENNESS_RELATION001 Rosamonde)
> (avowedBy BETWEENNESS_RELATION001 Wilbert)
>
> And then break that up into 2 triads as I showed in earlier messages....
>
> Sorry, that's the last one, I promise. :-)
Hey Cathy, you won#t get away so easily with this. :)
I can't find the time now, though I promise I#ll think more about this and try
to see how you propose to break these following the earlier example. I guess
the previous example didn't completely enlight me. It still isn't clear to me
what#s this thridness which is preserved when you break down further. From what
I can tell, it's the number three in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. (Seems that
you can always pick up your three things and say 'see there are three of
them'.) In the earlier example, it's even less clear to me as equality as
precisely the effect of removing the putative distinction... So I guess I'm
still as confused as to where or what thirdness is and how it is not a trivial
claim which has no particular fundamental or practical significantion (but for
the Peirced ones?)
As for the solution here, I find it quite ingenious. I wouldn't have expected
that you took token relations into consideration. (Am I correct that this is a
token? it seems to fail otherweise.) I'm not sure what to think about this
actually. At any rate, this is a quite courageous move. (Is that some Peirce
orthodoxy by the way or is it your craft?) It seems to me that there is an
obvious issue of infinite regress lurking there however.
Pierre
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon, IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/