A model of duck depends on what we observe and know of ducks. For some anti-realists, also ducks depend on us. — jkop

Yes. ... This model of a duck is not so much a duck as it is a human-reflected duck(?). When we filter anything through human perception, we attach characteristics and behaviors that to it that are not at all the same as through the perception of a duck.

Have you ever had someone in your life tell you that you've 'changed', and later both of you discovering that it wasn't that you had changed so much but that the person had never actually invested the time and energy to 'know' you better. That person, in the interest of limited perception time, had refected their own biases into the conclusions they had reached.

If I had a dollar for every time I have been cordial towards a man and he took it as my being attracted to him. .... But that doesn't mean that I will stop being cordial. THAT is who I am, not the woman coming on to him that he has modeled in his mind based on his past experiences or hopeful future ones.

I believe that phenomenology, especially as developed by Derrida, — Metaphysician Undercover

As for phenomenology, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty, etc, ... We could easily fill up another thread on what I have to say about that. :wink:

Here's a link to some notes I wrote some time back. .... Phenomenology or Phaneroscopy?

This unnecessary separation produces an unnecessary layer between the sign and the interpretation of the sign, the unnecessary layer being "the object". — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you tell me what written work of his you are referring to?

As for Peirce's 'representamen' and triadic model, we need to recognize that he is pointing to what the sign means to the interpreter. ... It does take on a different identity than just considering what some might refer to as a specific ideal form.

For instance, here is an image that can mean different things to different cultures. ...



The 'object' is exactly the same, but the 'representamen' has a different identity.

I seem to be having trouble posting an image. I put the link to the photo as requested, but it's not showing.

Perhaps this will work...

The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.
— Mapping the Medium

See, I was somehow (I have no idea how) agreeing with you up until there (though I did not entirely understand everything that you said), but it's this last part that's the "deal breaker", for me (and I'm not even sure what I mean by that. Is this a situation of negotiation or not?). — Arcane Sandwich

Here are a few articles you might enjoy reading....

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa010/5856030

https://scitechdaily.com/mit-scientists-shed-new-light-on-the-critical-brain-connections-that-define-consciousness/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31365-6

https://www.ovid.com/journals/nebior/abstract/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104810~turings-cascade-instability-supports-the-coordination-of-the

One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'.
— Mapping the Medium

Is it? Are you speaking of Thirdness as Charles Sanders Peirce understood it, as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.
— Mapping the Medium

I don't understand this either. Can you explain what you mean here, in plain and simple English, and as objectively as you possibly can? Try to be as charitable as possible to my intellect here, I'm having a really difficult time understanding some of the more abstract notions that you are speaking about. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot 'can' any of this, but I hope you will consider learning a little more on your own about semiosis. Without engaging in dialogue with you in person, I am unable to meet you where you are and effectively explain all of this to you in the way that you say you need it explained. ... Your intellect seems to be functioning just fine.

Value judgements are analog; — alleybear

And in these examples, how would you reach those value judgements? How would you come to your conclusions?

But is 'hardness' a static, intrinsic property of a diamond?

One more example, and then we'll just stick with these three and go from there. ...

The sun is bright. ... The sun has brightness.

Is brightness a static, intrinsic property of the sun?

Let's add another example ...

Is hardness a static, intrinsic property of a diamond? ... Does a diamond possess hardness?

I think we need to distinguish between doubting the means, and doubting the end. Notice that this passage takes the ends (desires) for granted, so that the doubt being talked about is doubt of the means. — Metaphysician Undercover

No doubt. ... Thank you for bringing this up. ... I do want to point out again that to understand Peirce is to understand that he tries to walk the reader through what he suspects is their perceived 'notions' and then circles back around (there's that synechism in action) to point out aspects to reconsider. ... This is why the word 'architectonic' is so often used to describe Peirce's work. ... This was one of his first essays published in 'The Monist'. ... Again, understanding the constraints and environment of the time helps to understand why and how he formatted his essays the way that he did. ... It's important to also understand that William James was his best friend. And since Charles was ostracized from the academic community, James was helping him financially. James was a nominalist, and Peirce saw the errors in nominalism, so he walked a fine line with his essays. .... Please take Peirce as a whole, without dissecting and reducing his work and potentially misunderstanding his aims.

Ah, yes. Great quote. :sparkle:

If you didn't already gather this from my previous post, I think of myself as an expressed vehicle of communication by the whole.

If all is 'Mind', and matter is effete mind, and all returns to from where it came, 'Mind' needs to generate and express what it cognizes via causality of semiosis. .. One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'. Your genetic and epigenetic history carries habits that are combined in new ways. Add in some new information from the previous events and interactions of signs, and you become the unique sign that you then express to the world. ... All that I am, and all that I carry in genetic and epigenetic memory is an expressed sign to other living beings, and encountering otherness is as crucial as my participation. ... As they encounter me, and I encounter them, utterences or not, the experience is yet another sign to feed into the generating momentum of 'Mind'. Yes, events and participation are crucial, but with no more emphasis on 'individual' beings and events (as is the individualism of nominalism) than what is cascadingly and eventfully accomplished for the whole. ..... The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience.

Consciousness does not arise from the 'collective'. 'Collective' is a nominalistic word. A collective is merely a 'collection" of separate individuals, with no overarching narrative. How can there be no overarching narrative when you carry all of that genetic and epigenetic history?

You mentioned that you have no relationship to your table, but don't you? As effete mind, it still serves a purpose in your life. It is a sign of where you dine, where you work, the place and space it takes up in your home. Your memories of who gathered there with you. The time you bumped your leg on it and learned to be more careful. Someone designed it. Someone either built it or the machinery that crafted it. It carries all of that and more, and you choose to have it in your home. When others come to your home and see it along with you and your other possessions, the signs communicate to them more about who you are.

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative.

About Bakhtin, I'll just say it: when people explain Bakhtin to me, I feel like I'm not understanding even half of the things that people are trying to explain to me. Like, there's some parts that I get, there's other parts that I even agree with, but then there are some parts that I just don't understand. — Arcane Sandwich

You and many other people. He is notoriously difficult to understand (and especially for a nominalistic culture!), and it doesn't help that for so long there was confusion about who within the 'Bakhtin Circle' actually wrote what. But when it comes to 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act', Bakhtin definitely wrote it.

Bakhtin's concept of dialogism is an influencing aspect in my development of Evrostics. ... Dialogue, and the interaction of the multiple voices brought in by any being's genetics, culture, and biological environment (epigenetics) is an expression and extension of semiosis by way of utterances, developing and creating meaning that is more than the sum of its concretized word 'parts'. This influences us personally, socially, and culturally. In Evrostics, I highlight dialogue as a catalyst in the recursive and reciprocal nature of understanding. Dialogue isn't just a medium for exchanging ideas but an active process that shapes and transforms our perceptions and relationships. ... As for literary theory, Bakhtin worked to explain how this is expressed in the written word.

Whitehead was more inclined toward nominalism in that his process philosophy emphasized the particular, concrete experiences (actual occasions).

Bakhtin, on the other hand, leaned more toward a holistic and integrated view that goes beyond nominalism. His focus on the interaction of different voices and perspectives highlights the emergent, interconnected nature of reality.

I hope this explanation helps.

And it sounds more like a "process philosophy" — Arcane Sandwich

When it comes to Bakhtin, it helps to focus on dialogue as a dynamic, reciprocally recursive, action, and as a sort of embodied medium that brings in all of the cultural and biological influences of those engaged in it. ... On the surface, it may resemble 'some' aspects of Whitehead, but Whitehead was more nominalistic than Bakhtin, and Bakhtin actually covered more 'breadth' of what the momentum of a lived existence entails. ... He is another one than takes time and study to understand, but I think the reward is worth it.

Thank you for your having taken the time to consider and respond to my thoughts.

I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats. — Barkon

No doubt that life is full of constraints, and we each deal with different ones from where and when we stand. ... It can be frustrating at times, but looking back on our lives might help us see why we experienced those constraints in different times and places. For me, it makes me realize that I too am influential in that my handling of those constraints encouraged or freed constraints on whatever or whomever surrounded me. ... So, I agree with you that we are personally prevented from becoming too mad or in control. What we need to worry about is how autopoiesis might set in and create a combined force that is much larger than any one person. It then becomes extremely unlikely that we can break that momentum in time for a correction.

Perhaps this might be helpful for some in this thread. .....

Go to https://projector.tensorflow.org/ and you will see an artificial intelligence LLM neural network. If you scroll your cursor around on the model, you will see a word show up on each data point. What's important to understand about AI is that the linear connections between each of these words is based solely on statistical occurrence in Western culture English. A particular word may statistically show up more often than another in conjunction with another word. The associations are NOT based on any sort of depth of relational understanding. Words can mean different things to different people and cultures. The study of the forms of words is called 'morphology' for a reason. .... The concretization of words and the linear associations in nominalistic data sets is the foundation of artificial intelligence LLMs. Inherently, nominalistic AI engages in haphazard hypostatic abstraction and improper negation, ultimately setting the stage for hallucinations. .... None of this is aligned with analog reality. ... Humanity is handing over our future to this, and it is very unsafe. ... From my perspective, using an LLM to research the compiled history of human nominalistic data is fine, but it's extremely important to remember that not all of our history has been labeled and categorized, and that the dynamic nature of life and dialogue is not at all imbued in our artificial intelligence.

Also from the essay, “…. imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied…”, which implies metaphysical cognitions possess bad logical quality, precisely the opposite of my personal opinion. — Mww

I want to expand on this a bit. ....

As I mentioned in another thread, in order to get a more encompassing picture of Peirce's writings, it's important to consider the philosophical environment of his time and community. I suspect that he was expressing this statement due to the constraints and pressures he was under at the time. He had married a woman who would actually conduct Tarot card readings for their Episcopal church community, and he became involved with this woman prior to his divorce being final, which was instrumental in ostracizing him from the academic community. ... All I am saying is that after years of studying Peirce, I get his speech and inflections, which can be challenging when first starting to read him. ... Note that he said "to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied." ...In this specific statement, he was not speaking of metaphysics as a philosophical discipline.

whereas comfort is a feeling — Mww

I agree. I admit that I used the word 'uncomfortable' when that is not what Peirce actually said in the essay. I was not writing that comment for academic scrutinization. :wink: I shall be more careful in the future. This is what I get for not being fully awake when expressing my thought.

Substitute 'irritation' for 'uncomfortable', and please forgive my faux pas.

This is what he actually wrote.....

"Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least such active effect, but stimulates us to inquiry until it is destroyed. This reminds us of the irritation of a nerve and the reflex action produced thereby; while for the analogue of belief, in the nervous system, we must look to what are called nervous associations -- for example, to that habit of the nerves in consequence of which the smell of a peach will make the mouth water.
IV
The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief. I shall term this struggle inquiry, though it must be admitted that this is sometimes not a very apt designation.

The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to attain belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be such as may truly guide our actions so as to satisfy our desires; and this reflection will make us reject every belief which does not seem to have been so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion. We may fancy that this is not enough for us, and that we seek, not merely an opinion, but a true opinion. But put this fancy to the test, and it proves groundless; for as soon as a firm belief is reached we are entirely satisfied, whether the belief be true or false. 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. The most that can be maintained is, that we seek for a belief that we shall think to be true. But we think each one of our beliefs to be true, and, indeed, it is mere tautology to say so.

"

Also from the essay, “…. imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied…”, which implies metaphysical cognitions possess bad logical quality, precisely the opposite of my personal opinion. — Mww

I understand. This is where the 'reflections' of Kant appear in Peirce's work. ... It would probably be prudent of me to explain that I do not think of any of my favorite philosophers as the 'end all be all'. After all, if I did my framework wouldn't be so unique. :sparkle:

“dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww

Speaking of "dogmatic slumbers", are you familiar with Charles Sanders Peirce's essay titled 'The Fixation of Belief'? ... I mentioned in another post here recently about how nominalism might be a human survival cognition tool, assisting us in rapid discernment. But we also need to be aware of 'fixations' that develop via autopoiesis, personally and culturally. ... In the essay, Peirce explores the idea that beliefs settle our doubts because doubts make us uncomfortable. ... Perhaps this is behind the idea of 'concretizing'? But what becomes haphazard hypostatic abstraction is when nominalism attempts to concretize that which is inherently dynamic. .... One of my favorite Goethe quotes is this. ... “How difficult it is… to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word."

your are somehow "experiencing" (we'll get to that in a moment) two different modalities at the same time: contingency and necessity. It's as if you're aware that the "Facts of Life" are contingent, like, you got what you got, those are the cards you've been dealt, so now deal with it. But you see? As soon as you start to explain it (at least, that's what happens in my case, subjectively) they suddenly have this "wavey" oddness, eerie-like quality. — Arcane Sandwich

Have you read Mikhail Bahktin's 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'? ... I think that it surveys much of what you are pondering. ... Here is an excerpt from it that you might interesting. ...

"All of modern philosophy sprang from rationalism and is thoroughly permeated by the prejudice of rationalism (even where it consciously tries to free itself from this prejudice) that only the logical is clear and rational, while, on the contrary, it is elemental and blind outside the bounds of an answerable consciousness, just as any being-in-itself is. The clarity and necessary consistency of the logical, when they are severed from the unitary and unique center constituted by answerable consciousness, are blind and elemental forces precisely because of the law inherent in the logical-the law of immanent necessity. The same error of rationalism is reflected in the contraposition of the objective qua rational to the subjective, individual, singular qua irrational and fortuitous. The entire rationality of the answerable act or deed is attributed here (though in an inevitably impoverished form) to what is objective, which has been abstractly detached from the answerable act, while everything fundamental that remains after that is subtracted, is declared to be a subjective process. Meanwhile, the entire transcendental unity of objective culture is in reality blind and elemental, being totally divorced from the unitary and unique center constituted by an answerable consciousness. Of course, a total divorce is in reality impossible and, insofar as we actually think that unity, it shines with the borrowed light of our answerability. Only an act or deed that is taken from outside as a physiological, biological, or psychological fact may present itself as elemental and blind, like any abstract being. But from within the answerable act, the one who answerably performs the act knows a clear and distinct light, in which he actually orients himself."
― Mikhail Bakhtin

Perhaps the striving of all 'being' is to process what living allows it to process and reach for becoming whatever it can become. There is so much to process! The autopoietic, recursive, folding and unfolding of the striving would generate unfathomable combinations of creative manifestations, some more successful than others, but ultimately looping back in to encourage striving and further processing. ... Pretty glorious and amazing, from my perspective.

For Heraclitus the tension of opposites is essential. We may think of it is the function of reason to disambiguate, but logos holds opposites together in their tension. Logos does not resolve all things to 'is' or 'is not'. — Fooloso4

Exactly. ... This is what Peirce was trying to explain to Dewey when Dewey was attending Peirce's lectures. Peirce confronted Dewey about his not understanding negation. What is negated maintains a relationship to that which negates it. How can we distinguish anything without holding what we are trying to distinguish it from? Attributes and qualities are more distinguishable in the 'reflection' of absence of them, and the recognition of that reflection needs to be maintained.

Peirce's critique of Dewey's understanding of negation points out the problems with improper negation. Nominalism functions as a binary 'not'—a simplistic rejection that isolates itself from what it negates. Proper negation, however, is a relational act: it doesn't merely deny but holds in consideration the reality and coherence of what it negates, preserving the mutual dependency that sustains the distinction. As I often say and have written much about, "there is no 'I' without the 'not I'"; negation becomes a dynamic interplay that enriches meaning rather than impoverishing it through isolation.

I haven't taken the time to read every post in this thread (I hope to!), but I do want to point out that to understand Peirce we must take into account the philosophical debates of his time, his perspective on atomism and cosmology, the differences between James/Dewey pragmatism and Peirce's 'pragmaticism', a thorough understanding of his anti-phenomenalism (the difference between his 'phaneroscopy' and nominalistic phenomenalism), his semiotic model (not Saussurian!), how the three categories (Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness) loop and sustain each other to generate momentum, and his synechistic method of inquiry (his scientific method).

Granted, that's a lot to cover. But to make assumptions about his realism and lump it in with Plato is a serious mistake of logic. .... Above all, Peirce was an absolutely brilliant logician.

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww

When a person cannot see the actual and current cohesiveness of relations that bind existence and reality, and the inherent momentum that generates continued creation, it is extremely difficult to bridge or mend the nominalism fractures. .... There has to be sight and recognition before that work can even begin. ... I have learned this repeatedly. ... My work is valuable, and time demands that I manage that time wisely.

Thank you for your interest in seeing this discussion continue, but I cannot spend further time on it.

That even the most maddest minds were captivated by some saintly force. — Barkon

I am done with all of my holiday juggling and now back to a more 'typical' work routine. I should have a little more time to delve into some of this, if you still want to.

Will you tell me more about why you posted what I quoted from you above?

when the red light is showing — Corvus

Clearly, you have no awareness of semiosis.

The blindness caused by the nominalism thought virus is prolific and ingrained in many people. I no longer debate with that affliction. It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue.

It still sounds a mental event or process resulted from perception and understanding. — Corvus

And this does not exist in the external world? ... Consider that the next time you try to maneuver city traffic without traffic lights and signs.

It still sounds a mental event or process resulted from perception and understanding. Would you say the narratives exist in the external world? — Corvus

From an online vocabulary dictionary....
exist
Share
/ɛgˈzɪst/
/ɛgˈzɪst/
IPA guide
Other forms: existing; existed; exists

{ The verb exist means to live, to have reality. Dodos no longer exist because they were hunted to extinction.

It's not only "live" things that exist. The government exists, as does your fear of heights. Anything that can be acknowledged in the present, exists. }

And another....

{ exist
in American English
(ɛgˈzɪst; ɪgˈzɪst)
verb intransitive
1. to have reality or actual being; be
2. to occur or be present
the qualities that exist in a person
3. to continue being; live }


..... My answer to your question? ... Yes. The causality of semiosis occurs and is present in the external world.

heard of some narratives, and I know some narratives, I could tell you a narrative for something, but narratives exist? — Corvus

My usage of the word 'narrative':
A causality of semiosis that results in a representamen of a situation or process, and in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching momentum.

The simple judgement, that two distinct ideas (such as should I stay and should I go) are contradictory, is itself a relation established between the two distinct ideas. In order to make such a judgement truthful, or accurate, the two ideas must be compared (i.e. exist together in the mind at the same time) or else any such judgement would be arbitrary or random. Therefore if one contrary idea could only come into the mind after the other left, it would be impossible to even judge, in any way other than a random guess, that the two are contradictory. To judge them as contradictory requires that both actively coexist within the mind at the same time, to be able to decide that the two fulfill the criteria of "contradictory". — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope no one minds if I interject something here. Perhaps it might be useful? If not, just ignore me and proceed. :)

Secondness also takes place in thought. The process of thinking is a dialogue within the self, where ideas bump up against each other creating a reactionary momentum, pushing ideas (and subsequent motion, physical movement) into expressiveness. When we think, we are having a dialogue between the self of a moment before and the self currently manifesting (coming into being) in time and space. Since it is constantly changing along with us, the current aspects of time and space influence our thought as the previous thought melds into the changes manifesting in the current. All of the cells in our bodies are engaged in this, as are all beings we influence and are influenced by.

a framework is fine. — Barkon

Then, 'framework' it is. :wink:

I cannot stay on here at the moment, but I look forward to an ongoing dialogue. Thank you.

There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not. — Barkon

Because of my understanding of the inherent analog nature of Thirdness, I cannot haphazardly abstract and apply the word 'matrix' to it. Here again, good dialogue demands that we clarify what definition of 'matrix' we are using to approach this investigation. Are we using a more embodied type of definition, such as a 'medium' or 'framework'? I can go forward in our discussion if that is the definition we agree upon. However, if we are using 'matrix' in the mathematical, digital columns and rows definition, I cannot go forward in a scenario that fragments and reduces the 'medium', slicing and dicing its analog necessity for creation.

the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness). — Barkon

We each stand in placement within a morphing process and see what is available to our senses in that current placement of time and space (consider Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Once Occurrent Ought'), but it's important to remember that we each are within and manifested by what we examine and investigate. ... There is no 'I' without the 'Not I'.

God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness. — Barkon

Perhaps it might be helpful to delve into the history of nominalism and its manifestations in theological (religious) thought.

Nominalism (the practice of human static labeling and categorization) was most likely a human cognition survival mechanism for instantaneous decision-making. Different cultures injected nominalism into their religious beliefs in various ways, ultimately defining what they saw as divine and omnipotent. Afterall, nominalism did 'provide' in many ways when it cognitively assisted in survival. However, once the system that is 'humanity' multiplied and became more complex, nominalism started revealing its house-of-cards nature, as its static applications do not apply to complex systems. We, our biosphere, and all of 'life' are a process that is constantly and autopoietically folding and unfolding as the system processes the interactions (as 'mind'). .... We are not within a digital matrix consisting of individual, static objects. Reality (existence) is analog, fluidly morphing as Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, generating more manifestations as it processes. ... This is what Charles Sanders Peirce meant when he referred to a 'Neglected Argument for God'. .... So, I think a discussion like this first needs to identify a starting point of where in this process are we beginning to investigate together. Otherwise, it just becomes a cluster of wherever various inquirers placements within the process happen to be right now.

Merry Christmas!!! — frank

Thank you! I hope you're also enjoying the seasonal festivities.

But they can never present themselves as existence i.e. they are not the presenting beings such as the bodily structures, or bodies in the physical world. — Corvus

Manifested, presenting beings acting as catalysts within a grander narrative... and that narrative exists. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation (existence), of whichever category we are speaking (Firstness Secondness Thirdness).
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce

But they don't exist like the physical bodies. — Corvus

There is no cause.

And like all scientific theories and concepts, they are known to us by education and information. But they are to be toppled, denied and replaced when newly discovered theories and concepts are more making sense. Hence all scientific laws, principles, and concepts are temporary information until the newer ones replaced them. So why bother? — Corvus

Why bother? ... Because of the necessity of being to becoming. That is the causality of semiosis. Thirdness in action. An open system is a living system. ... Take away Thirdness and all you have is static Secondness. The habits, laws, and momentum of Thirdness exists, and Thirdness is as real as any material object manifested in Secondness. I am speaking of manifestation in describing the word 'exist'. ... As I mentioned before, if you limit your perspective to the nominalistic, self-referential Secondness starting point, you close your system to only the human standpoint of static object categorization as seen from where the individual stands. But it's extremely important to remember that we are within and manifested by the same causality of semiosis we attempt to examine. We may not be able to perceive from the same perspective as every other being, but we CAN and SHOULD recognize that we are within and manifested by the same autopoietic, folding and unfolding causality of semiosis fed by the fluid, synechistic interactions of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. ....
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce

Only the beings which are presenting themselves in visual and touchable physical or material forms exist.  Nothing else exists. — Corvus

Gravity, magnetism, entropy, thermodynamics,
... Do these not exist? ....... Only physical, touchable, material forms exist? I suppose so, that is if you only limit your perspective to Secondness. I do not.

You cannot use "exist" on the abstract concepts. — Corvus

Hmm .... I haven't been on the 'forum' for several years, but this is a good starting place for me to jump back in. :grin:

'Abstractions' are a huge can of worms, and their wriggling is very real. ... It's how biological creatures understand and apply them that can either be very useful or very dangerous (we're stepping into that danger now with AI haphazard hypostatic abstraction). ... When you understand thought as a system, you cannot possibly dismiss its very real 'existence'.

Like others who come here to post, I am only hoping to find others who are familiar with these topics so we can engage in productive dialogue. I mistakenly thought that was the intention of this forum

I really don't think I've been rude, even though I was treated very rudely when I first came here. My intentions have been genuine and sincere. I apologize if I came across as anything other than that.

Oh my... So sorry. It was definitely not intentional.