Dear John, (01)
As I think you know I have always struggled with Thirdness, but I think you
description below sheds some light. (02)
> 3. Thirdness is a triadic mediating relation that brings two or
> more other entities into some dyadic relation. For example,
> marriage (Thirdness) brings two human beings (described by
> Firsness) into a relationship in which one plays the role
> of husband (an aspect of Secondness) and the other plays
> the role of wife (another aspect of Secondness).
> (03)
MW: Let me explain how I see what you are describing here. Relationships
between individuals are actually states that are brought about by an
activity. So in this case there is a marriage ceremony, and as a result of
that marriage ceremony a marriage relationship is brought about. (04)
MW: Let me ask a question. When a mother gives birth to a child, a number of
things change: (05)
1. a new person is created (legally) - let's leave conception aside here.
2. a mother/child and father/child relationship are created.
3. possibly sibling relationships are created. (06)
The second and third of these would seem to be examples of thirdness, but
what about the first? (07)
Regards (08)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (09)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: 02 April 2012 22:12
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research
> program of ontologies
>
> On Fri, March 30, 2012 10:36, John F. Sowa wrote:
> > ...
>
> > Another philosopher who mapped some related issues to logic is
> Charles
> > Sanders Peirce. In my analysis of the debate between Searle and
> Smith
> > (copy below), I applied Peirce's categories of Firstness, Secondness,
> > and Thirdness:
>
> > 1. Firstness is an aspect of something x that can be represented
> > by a monadic relation or predicate P(x). The definition of
> > P can be stated in terms of P itself without any reference
> > to or consideration of anything outside of P. Anything that
> > is called a *natural kind* such as a dog or a dandelion can be
> > described by a monadic predicate P(x) that states the conditions
> > for identifying x as a dog, dandelion, or other natural kind.
>
> > 2. Secondness is an aspect of something x in relation to something
> > else y, which is independent of x. It can be specified by a
> > dyadic relation R(x,y). An example is somebody considered as
> > a mother, daughter, sister, employee, employer, driver, pilot,
> > banker, skier, swimmer, patient, doctor, nurse...
>
> > 3. Thirdness is a triadic mediating relation that brings two or
> > more other entities into some dyadic relation. For example,
> > marriage (Thirdness) brings two human beings (described by
> > Firsness) into a relationship in which one plays the role
> > of husband (an aspect of Secondness) and the other plays
> > the role of wife (another aspect of Secondness).
>
> > Thirdness is involved in all those examples that have been discussed
> > in this thread with the terms 'conceptual' or 'social'. Among them
> > are all the issues concerning contracts of any kind, whether stated
> in
> > writing, concluded with a handshake, or established by a longstanding
> > habit or pattern of behavior.
> > ...
> > Responsibility, by the way, is another aspect of Thirdness, which
> > involves a triadic relation of somebody x with respect to something y
> > for some purpose z.
>
>
> > In general, every instance of Thirdness involves some agent x
> (human,
> > animal, or perhaps robot) who has established a relationship to some
> y
> > for some reason z.
>
> This seems to greatly narrow the idea of Thirdness. Although the
> examples involve agents, this does not seem to be part of the
> definition.
>
> As i understand it, physical support is a Thirdness. No agent is
> needed to establish the relation. Natural events are types of
> Thirdness. Neither the support situation nor the events are
> Firstnesses -- they do not exist independent of anything else. Nor are
> they Secondnesses -- aspects of one Firstness in relation to another.
> They are complex things that bring various Firstnesses into dyadic
> relations with each other.
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> ...
> > John
> > _________________________________________________________
> >
> > Source: http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
> ...
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|