Re: A Question About Peirce's Categories

Re: Steven Ericsson-Zenith
At: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/7982

Steven,

I think the point about sequentiality is correct.

Relations are ordered according to their arities or dimensions,
and Peirce holds that three are enough to generate all others,
but not all relations of constraint or determination, that is,
information, are causal or temporal in nature, not even if we
try to imagine some order of triadic causality or temporality.

Attempting to understand the relational categories by setting out ordered
lists
of terms that are regarded as naming absolute, monadic, non-relational
essences
is a sign that our understanding has gone off track and fallen into yet
another
rut of reductionism.  I don't know what to call it -- absolutism?
monadicism?
non-relativism? -- but it's just as bad a form of reductionism as
nominalism.

Regards,

Jon