ONT Brief Lives Examined
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
BLE. Brief Lives Examined
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Joining a program already in progress,
at the point where it becomes relevant
to the relations among logic, ontology,
and semiotics.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
BLE. Note 2
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
An accumulation of impressions over the past few days
leads me to believe that it would be good to clear up
some things about the critique of "syntacticism" that
I have been directing at certain approaches to logic,
inquiry, and semiotics.
1. I prefer to criticize the practices in question under the heading
of "syntacticism" rather than, say, "formalism", because I believe
it is more accurate and less ambiguous to do so. The word "form",
with all of its cognates and derivatives, is far too important to
let it be abused this way, merely on account of a brief flirtation
with finitism that a few logicians and mathematicians indulged in
during the Roaring 20's, or thereabouts, confounding the two isms
of finitism and formalism along the way. In particular, we will
encounter grave difficulties preserving the good sense of Peirce's
definition of logic as "formal (quasi-necessary) semiotics" if we
capitulate to this lapse of terminological good practice.
2. Syntacticism, viewed as an aspectual emphasis, a heuristic strategy,
an intellectual instrument, or an optional perspective, rather than
as something akin to a form of exclusive devotion, has its uses, or
else we would hardly find this tool in our mental toolboxes in the
first place. So it is only the excessive, exclusive, or otherwise
inappropriate fix on syntax that I am attempting to remedy here.
3. I can think of no critical or practical alternative to the requirement
that we reflect on our use of signs, whether they be the signs that we
observe in nature, the concepts that occupy our minds in the processes
of thought, or the symbols that we etch into whatever media we possess.
To reflect on semiosis is already the genesis of formal semiosis, that
is to say, to nudge it out of its formative stage into a slightly more
formalized condition, no matter how incipient it is or inchoate remain.
4. Thus, the element of error that we need to correct in "syntacticism", when
the charge is used in this critical sense, is not mere attention to syntax,
indeed, it is precisely the lack of sufficient attention to syntax, to the
extent of liability of failing to distinguish the properties of signs from
the properties of the ostensibly corresponding objects, if any there exist.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
BLE. Note 3
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Let me try to sharpen up that last point, which was expressed in clumsy way
and which omits a whole category of important factors that need attention.
| The element of error that needs to be corrected in the syntactic focus
| is not the mere fact of attending to syntax. On the contrary, it is
| precisely the lack of appropriate attention to syntax, resulting in
| a failure to distinguish the existential correlates of signs from
| the existential correlates of their objects, that amounts to the
| basic fault in this area.
By an "existential correlate" (EC) of an entity,
I mean (1) the fact of whether it exists or not,
in the Peircean sense, whether it reacts or not,
along with (2) its ontological "properties" and
(3) its ontological "instances", as this entity
resides in a given "ontological hierarchy" (OH).
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o