Re: Triadic Sign Relations
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.inquiry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-08/msg00102.html One of the occupational hazards of the working ontologist seems to be the Fallacy Of Misplaced Essences (FOME) -- I was going to call this the Fundamental Ontological Error (FOE) by virtue of its analogy to the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) in social psychology, but the opportunity to invoke both Vonnegut and Whitehead in a single acronym was way too tempting to pass up. In the case of sign relations, as defined by Peirce's best definitions, we have to remember that there is no ontology to being objects, signs, or interpretant signs. There may be an ontology of whole sign relations, but there is no "essence" that distinguishes the "accidents" of being in the role of an object, a sign, or an interpretant sign, respectively. See http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html Jon Awbrey -- inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1 oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey