And that is not a good ontology. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can only say that understanding Peirce's intention takes a lot of time in research and study. There's clearly nothing I can say to you to instill that understanding.

This will be my final description of the differences between nominalism, Platonism, and Peirce in this thread. There is clearly no reason for me to keep repeating myself here.

For Peirce, abstraction is dynamic, relational, and grounded in semiosis (the process of sign-making and interpretation). Universals and abstractions are not arbitrary (as in nominalism) or static and disconnected (as in Platonism). Instead, they are real but only in the sense that they emerge through relational continuity and are embedded in a triadic process.

Peirce's approach stands out by addressing the limitations of nominalism (over-reliance on discrete categorization) and Platonism (over-reification of abstractions). He emphasizes the relational, processual, and evolutionary nature of abstraction, making it more aligned with the complexities of the real world.

For Peirce, abstraction is dynamic, relational, and grounded in semiosis (the process of sign-making and interpretation). — Mapping the Medium

That sounds like nominalism to me. But I think it misses the point which separates Peirce from nominalism, making him closer to Platonist. For Peirce, the universal is an "object" and this name is supported by the assumption of "sameness", what you called "functional continuity across interpretations".

This assumed "continuity" of sameness, despite differences, is what allows the universal to be known as one object instead of many distinct conceptions in many distinct minds. This is analogous to the observed temporal continuity of the physical object which enables our assumption of "same", despite differences of change over time, instead of assuming a new object at each passing moment.

Notice that the title "object" is supported by an assumed continuity of existence, in both cases. The continuity of the physical object being supported by the assumed temporal continuity between distinct moments of existence, and the continuity of the universal being supported by the assumed coninuity produced from the use of signs.

The problem being that Peirce's semiosis, and proposed triadic structure cannot support this assumed continuity required for his determination of "sameness", and "object". By placing the object outside the relationship between interpretant and representamen, as your diagram neatly shows, as something distinct, (independent with its own continuity),having its own distinct relation between each of the other two, Peirce provides a misleading model. A true analysis of the relationship between the interpretation and the sign would reveal that the sign actually breaks any supposed continuity of the universal, between one interpretation and another.

So to make a true representation, which would support the supposed continuity of "the object", the category of "object" would have to include both interpretant and representamen as united in continuity, within "the object". This is what is commonly known as the transcendence of Platonic objects. The existence of the universal, as am object, transcends the existence of its composite parts, the sign and the interpretation of the sign. That the object transcends both, and is therefore of a distinct class produced by a unity of the other two, is a necessary condition for the the continuity of the object.

What Peirce does with the triadic semiotic structure, is remove the transcendence which supports the continuity of "the object", yet he still claims an object with continuity. This allows that the continuity of "the object" may be understood as a property of the interpretant, or it may be understood as a property of the representamen, in his proposal of ambiguity. So all we have is a nominalist sign-mind representation, with an assumed continuous "object" which may be assigned to the sign, or it may be assigned to the mind, depending on one's theoretical purpose.

This is why it is useful to refer to those who apply Peirce's triadic structure, to demonstrate the inconsistency in application, produced by that ambiguity. In "objective" science such as biosemiotics, it is evident that "the object " is a property of the representamen, yet in social applications of semiotics, it is clear that "the object" is understood as property of the interpretation. A true representation of a united interpretant/representamen, to support a continuous object, is not required, because "the object" may simply be assigned to one side or the other.

This is because Peirce takes a nominalist sign-mind model, and adds "an object" without any rigid principles of sameness or continuity. This allows those who apply the model to assign "object" where there is no support for an object. The defense of that assignment is that it is a "Platonic object", but Peirce has denied the ontological support for Platonic objects.

Peirce's approach stands out by addressing the limitations of nominalism (over-reliance on discrete categorization) and Platonism (over-reification of abstractions). — Mapping the Medium

This is exactly why Peirce' project fails. Asserting compatibility between incompatible ontologies is not a solution. Taking a nominalist structure of "discrete categorization", and imposing an assumption of continuity, without justification, just to make it more "Platonic", is not a solution to the discrete/continuous dilemma.

Asserting compatibility between incompatible ontologies — Metaphysician Undercover

...

Taking a nominalist structure of "discrete categorization", and imposing an assumption of continuity, without justification, just to make it more "Platonic", is not a solution to the discrete/continuous dilemma. — Metaphysician Undercover

Peirce absolutely does NOT do what you are asserting here.

I am exploring this issue in my thread on Hypostatic Abstraction, Precisive Abstraction, Proper vs Improper Negation

numbers don't exist. — Art48

I agree with you. They exist. But they are ultimately make-believe. Functional tools we have constructed, projected into the natural world as such, and because they are Functional, collectively believe.

In that sense, as 'opposed' to the real and natural world against which we project them, they are ontologically not real. So they exist, but only for humans, and only in that fictional layer which we have imposed upon reality, hiding it only from ourselves. When humans are nowhere to be found, so too will numbers be.*

*assuming that no other organism evolves to adopt them, and that even our AI etc are gone.

Good stuff, the quotes below are of my particular interest and I quoted them as I read the thread...Sitting now looking at them, I am fascinated in this thinking. The thinking thoughts are now typed words that are giving me ideas [right now even holding me accountable to them]....

As you touch on some real interesting points. See parts that I have underlined/bolded from your comments for the specifics that caught my attention:

When thebelief 'satisfies our desire', as the means to the end, then we are not inspired to doubt the means because the result, end, is insured as that satisfaction. So long as the desire itself, the end, is never doubted, and the means are observed to be successful, then doubt is only relative to the efficiency of the means. Now means are empirically justifiable, as we demonstrate that action A produces the desired end Z. Then various ways of producing Z can be compared, A, B, C, analyzed, and the resulting "settlement", which method best produces Z, can obtain to a level higher than mere opinion.

However, such justified settlementsrely on taking the end for granted.**** It is only relative to the assumption that the end Z is what is truly desired, that the means are in this way justified. Doubting the end itself puts us squarely into the field of opinion, unless the end itself can be justified as the means to a further end. In traditional moral philosophy there is a distinction made between the real good, and the apparent good. The apparent good is nothing but personal opinion, but the real good is assumed to somehow transcend personal opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Personal opinions are both bad and good, though no? Bias is opinion based, some outspoken far from the silence of their own wonderings within the mind...when bias or opinion based beliefs, reasons, or claims is used as an excuse to not continue towards finding that real good...lack of acceptance or awareness or willingness to see self and others. See the self in others. When our personal opinions are preventing US (together) from reaching higher levels or desires (which are, personal) then the real problem is in the excuse to NOT act towards higher levels because for some it is not easy tolerating others opinions and these tolerances are at different limits. They are valid, even when reasonable doubt arises. We doubt our selves and others, but how do you know I never doubted from the start? Does that chance exist to prove some one or our selves wrong? Right? Transcending personal opinion requires lessons to be learned, a settlement is justified in itself at that decision making moment. Maybe they never knew what they truly desired and are scared that they already foresee the truth, and it's not good.

Wooo! :sweat: That was a lot, I wont be offended if we skip all that but note I did touch on similar ideas before, see thread, "Why be moral?" from Michael in 2015**, I commented *over a year ago:

"Can you have or hold morals that may not ever be seen in action? perhaps morals are justification itself.
what if, intentions are a/the gateway to potentially lead to one participating in questionable behavior and ,by justifying ONLY planned actions as they play the role as "the excuse to act". despite the outcome that was bound to occur...no matter what, for better or worse.
***an excuse to act = tricking the brain into planning a justified NOT BELIEF, but idea with reason TO MAKE BELIEF through others perceptions without the true action explained aloud, despite the facts of matter being known or knowable, only interally between self and mind, know the true reason/s for hiding a "truth" thanks to privacy within us and our wants needs goals desires that we allow permit tolerate accept and all its opposites and vice versas equally considered and accounted for....the space for thought is and is found when and in using the brain silently within the minds limits, which the self can control as boundaries contrstraints etc for what it really is thats happening..e.g. daydreaming, multitasking, texting and in a meeting on zoom, other examples exist

*reason=goal or desire? i think they exists with and without a belief system but im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself.

you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed .[ex. my intention was/is to have fun tonight-8.20.23 522pm]] AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what reality played out was very different

Intentions show that the individual has thought.
What happens when you bypass your intentions? COULD INTENSIONS COULD BE THE BRAIN TRICKING ITS SELF OR BODY? WHETHER WE ACT ON THEM OR NOT..PLANNED OR RANDOM, COMPLETE ATTEMPT AND FAIL, OR SUCCESS OF WHAT FROM ACTION IS JUSTIFIED? IS IT STILL WITHOUT ACTION? " — Kizzy

I also underlined parts from the following contributions you made that talk about justification in itself:

" And it is clear that nothing out of the sphere of our knowledge can be our object, for nothing which does not affect the mind can be the motive for mental effort."

This statement inverts the real, or true, relation between the being with knowledge and the object of that being, which is its goal or end. Knowledge, as justified opinion, explained above, is always justified as the means to the end. But the end which justifies the knowledge is simply assumed as an opinion, and this places "our object", which is the goal that motivates us, as outside of knowledge itself, as unjustified opinion. This is what Plato demonstrated in "The Republic", "the good" must be apprehended as outside of knowledge,"

PAUSE [[[[ Can "our object" be like an excuse to act and justification in itself might be settled upon when verified for credibility. Our "goals" might be not realistic or never close to being reached, but they can be justifications for some (wrongly) to act on this mirage they have yet to see themselves in...what makes a bad ending from a "good" movie? Potential? Expectations? When something starts good and ends badly, where is that line? From G to B? When is the moment? Is the point of no return foreseeable? It ought to be. I know it is. But trust in the mystery of the Universe and a little faith go a long way. To be understood by another as a lesson learned in time, perhaps? ]]]]

(quote continues), So the statement incorrectly asserts that the motivating object, the end, or the good, cannot be outside "the sphere of our knowledge". A proper analysis indicates that only the means to the end can be justified as knowledge, while the object itself, the end or good, must be apprehended as outside the sphere of knowledge. Therefore moral traditionalists characterize the apparent good as opinion, and the real good as understood only by God. This places "our object" as firmly outside "the sphere of our knowledge". — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we break this down more? I am confused at the way you put into text the inverse statement and how it was incorrectly asserted that the motivating "object" cannot be outside the sphere of knowledge. Are you saying the justification ITSELF is justified knowledge Understood by GOD, how does one understand such things? Seeing? Learning? Observing? Living? Watching? I think it's more of a KNOWING. A knowing and a faith that goes beyond questioning, doubts, and opinions. Beyond good or bad, into.....the light!

Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? — Kizzy


What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Seeing time pass may cause another thing to move a different way.....can one be forced out of the present moment? Can one be or USE force/d to stay in it?


Yes sure...that is one force. I think many forces happen in and with TIME. The "force" I write of here and agree with you it is from the passing of time, but not just a force alone plays a role in the space held as the passing of time is actively happening. THE awareness of Two things at once? It is perhaps a/the result of what is behind the events or experiences that are had/to be...Interested in entertaining retrocausal ideas, kind of...Time works in motion and it is OF it, a deeper look of my thinking below:

"5/9/23 1212pm

Of what.....is the "drive" mentioned above? [[ "a drive is needed and with it,...."]]]

Of human interest perhaps? How much does "interest" drive humans

Force OF motion vs Force IN motion = is just time in daily activities, as time goes on in a day, how are you linked to the time, how is time used/seen/acknowledged/important to humans actions TODAY...not any day, not on a Tuesday, TODAY...plans, relations, work, health (body and mind), money, circumstances, environment, what is expected vs what is possible vs what does human want to do and why.....

-F of M = Time available to act in the day, before tomorrow begins, and is no longer yesterday...Time forcing the measuring of movements, planning around time....not the actions being forced to motion, the action is ... a person planning BECAUSE OF TIME AVAILABLE TODAY....
Plans are of motion, a force [[ see Intend ]]
Acting on the plans, a force [[see Intent ]]
Timing, a point where a force occurs
Time, not a force alone but only when measured by Humans

-F in M = The actual actions a human takes on within the span of available time in a day and how well they are living and the current status of living situation is immersed in the appropriate environment...are you where you should be?? Time spent acting on the plans, whether timing is on track or not (not constrained by time, in the moment instead of on the clock

"a drive" = of interests of human-intention

drive+forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)=

forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)+human+nature=f......?

(human intention) + (a drive) + (Force of M) = "an excuse to act"

"an excuse to act" + forceIN(M) = accidents occur that are unnecessary
be IN motion and also OF motion?"

-from my notes, highly flawed and updated since...but relevant to showcase my stance perhaps not more clear, but evidently....


I suppose I do agree with answering the question, yes... but I think there is more to just this specific "force", being the cause of movement because of the passing of time...but our lives revolve around the clock, why? Is that force more powerful than our will to stop following time as we know it? We lose track of time...we pay consequences. What does my/your/our life revolve around besides the clock? We don't all flow with it, but we are all in it together...until we're not. Gone but not forgotten? Until we are....gone and forgotten. Then we wait, til the time comes and they remember us, again! Pure chance? Time/time avail. for that chance to occur? The spot, spotted! At last.


This might be a good place[time?] for me to jump from this thread to THAT thread :point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15544/what-does-consciousness-do/latest/comment

I have been following the back and forth with MU, it seems relevant to mention that from reading the other thread discussion currently being had encouraged me to respond HERE now. Although, I think the excerpt blurb I shared about forces, time in and of motion may align with the whereabouts of that discussion, as I can further explain when I arrive over there. For now, may it be lost in a final cause already....leaves it only to be found!

In the model I described, the present does not become the future, nor does the present become the past. The present is outside of time, and time consists of future and past. The future becomes the past, as time passes, and the present is a perspective from which this is observed. Also final cause acts from this perspective, as a cause from outside of time, which intervenes in the events which are occurring as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover

- 11 days ago, pg 3 of 3, "What Does Consciousness Do?"