So... who is "he"? — Banno

He is you. I will go back and edit. :wink:

Who's "he" — Banno

I was referring to what I said previously about this quote......

The temptation is to hypostatize
— Banno

I apologize, as I didn't mean to refer to you as 'he'. I now realize you are engaged in the dialogue.

Go on? — bongo fury

The temptation is to hypostatize — Banno

'Haphazard' Hypostatic Abstraction... refers to the careless or uncritical process of reifying a quality, relation, or concept into a separate concrete entity or 'object' without sufficient consideration of its relational context, grounding or implications. This process often results in oversimplification or misrepresentation, where an abstracted concept is treated as if it possesses an independent, fixed existence, neglecting the dynamic interconnected nature of the phenomena being abstracted.

By framing hypostatization as something that exists as an isolated or universalized phenomenon, Banno risks oversimplifying a process that varies depending on context and intent.

Banno abstracts "the temptation" as if it is a monolithic or static property of thought rather than a contextual tendency shaped by specific frameworks or practices.

Banno concretizes hypostatization itself, treating it as a singular, inherently problematic act, rather than a tool that can be used skillfully or recklessly depending on the circumstances.

Banno glosses over relational emergence, assuming that hypostatization inherently leads to error without exploring how it may reveal insights when applied thoughtfully (e.g., in Peirce's work).

Shouldn't that align with your objection to hypostatisation? — bongo fury

No.

What's interesting is in that warning about the temptation to hypostasize, that's exactly what Banno did.

The kind of error ('platonism') usually alleged by the nominalist, not of the nominalist. — bongo fury

Very true. This is why those who try to associate Peirce with Platonism are so off base. ... Don't even get me started on that. I have a major pet peeve about those who try to lump Peirce's realism in with Platonism. ... As I said before in another thread, abstraction is a can of worms.

But yeah, in this case statistical correlation makes sense. I'd wager it's different with biological systems, like ducks or tigers or foxes. — Manuel

And people. ... Exactly. ... LLMs concretize abstractions haphazardly, like many people often do, but people are in real life situations, where metaphor, analogy, and body language are understood culturally, not statistically. ... LLMs are a 'reflection' of society in a given snapshot, but they do not operate at all like the continuum a biological being exists in.

The problem which develops from Peirce's "taking the object for granted" — Metaphysician Undercover

I want to expand on this a bit..... Again, it is important to recognize that Peirce was a teacher and lecturer. He used language as needed to help his students understand from their cultural perspective at the time. This is another reason to study his entire works rather than snippets.

“A REPRESENTAMEN is a subject of a triadic relation TO a second, called its OBJECT, FOR a third, called its INTERPRETANT, this triadic relation being such that the REPRESENTAMEN determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic relation to the same object for some interpretant.” -CP Lowell Lectures, 1903

Peirce is not separately delineating an 'object' in the above excerpt from this lecture. It took me a LONG time to understand this, and it prompted me to want to learn more. Any nominalist reading this excerpt in isolation could easily misunderstand it. ... My point is to notice that he says "called' its object. He is not calling it "object", he is referring to what is commonly "called" 'object'.

Notice how he references TO a second and FOR a third. This is where the focus needs to be to understand this excerpt.

Peirce's Semiotic Model

Referring to the quote from Merleau-Ponty, we can see that "the object" is really a creation of the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

As for Merleau-Ponty, he was a phenomenologist. ... I am a phaneroscopist. There is a substantial (major) difference. My exploration of Merleau-Ponty helped me to see that. That was the whole point of my written piece on the topic.

Secondness is described as the physical constraints of the material world, such as walls and doors, yet it is also describe as "hard fact", and this refers to a description of the physical constraints, "fact" is corresponding truth about the physical world. So secondness, as the assumed "object", has dual existence which crosses a boundary of separation between the traditional categories of material and ideal. The "object" may be the physical constraint which we actually bump into, or it may be the supposed "hard fact" concerning that constraint. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, Secondness is not an object, as in your interpretation. Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are a triadic relationship. There are no separations between them. As in the case of how we understand the hardness of a diamond, they are relational. You cannot experience Secondness without Thirdness. ... This is a good example of how nominalism makes it difficult to shift thinking paradigms. It is blinding.

moment — Metaphysician Undercover

is the sum total of one's thoughts at any particular moment in time — Metaphysician Undercover

To understand 'moment' in mathematics and physics is to understand that time is a continuum, and a moment has no duration. Measuring something with zero duration is not feasible because all measurements inherently involve a finite interval.

Peirce understood this quite clearly. That understanding reveals itself in understanding his works as a whole.

Regarding 'Phaneron', Peirce is not naming an 'object'.

In synechistic terms, a moment is defined relationally, through interactions or changes. In phaneroscopy, moments are meaningful even if they cannot be measured. Their significance lies in their qualitative presence within the flow of experience, rather than their quantifiability.

How can I take your essays as anything other than secondary sources? — Metaphysician Undercover

I absolutely do not expect you to. That was my point.

But whatever is going on "behind the eyes", well, models will tell us almost nothing. What matters to understand a duck, is how the creature is interpreting the world. Behavior tells us almost nothing, especially is the duck is a mechanical construct, we are leaving out way too much. — Manuel

I had posted this in another thread, but it seems like it might be helpful in this one too. If not, just bypass.

The link at TensorFlow Projector shows an artificial intelligence neural network LLM model. Scrolling over the data points shows how the model statistically correlates different words. There are also different ways to explore the model. The words have no relational correlation, only statistical.

Have a nice day. — Heiko

And I certainly hope the same for you. :smile:

Mapping the medium"...
21m — Heiko

So sorry, my previous post wasn't complete.

It seems like you're raising a couple of different points, so let me try to address them.

If I understand correctly, your first question might be asking whether restricting what can be communicated or consciously experienced is a solution. My perspective is that synechistic inquiry doesn't aim to restrict; rather, it seeks to expand understanding by emphasizing relationality and context. The example of 'living in cold places' might reflect how our perceptions are shaped by habit and environment (which ties to Peirce’s concept of Thirdness), but deprivation itself isn't a solution—it's merely a condition that can influence understanding.

Your second question about assuming we already know everything is a sharp observation. Yes, I would agree that assuming complete knowledge can lead to disaster. Peirce’s philosophy explicitly warns against this by emphasizing fallibilism—the idea that our understanding is always provisional and open to revision. That’s why phaneroscopy, as a method, doesn’t seek to impose limits on experience but to investigate its structure with humility and rigor.

I hope this addresses your perplexity.

I really do not understand what you are up to. — Heiko

Yes. It does seem quite clear that you do not.

The terms "Firstness", "Secondness", and "Thirdness" allow one to say that there is also "Fourthness". And if there's such a thing as Fourthness, why not Fithness? How about A-Trillionth-Billionth-Six-Hundred-Forty-Seventhness?

It just makes no damn sense, woman. It's meaningless. Like, it's not real talk.

So let me ask you this: are you a human being? — Arcane Sandwich

You seem to misunderstand the rigor behind Peirce’s triadic categories. Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are not arbitrary—they are grounded in Peirce’s phenomenological exploration of how reality presents itself. The categories are exhaustive, not endlessly additive, because they describe the irreducible modes of being: possibility, interaction, and mediation.

Suggesting ‘Fourthness’, ect., overlooks the logic behind these distinctions. Peirce didn’t invent these categories as a playful exercise; they reflect the foundational structure of reality as understood through relationality. I’m curious to know whether or not you’ve engaged directly with Peirce’s writings on this, such as The Categories in Detail or his Lectures on Pragmatism.”

And calling me 'woman' is not an appropriate way to encourage quality dialogue.

The diamond is a a real "thing": It stays in form if left alone, it is a solid body. — Heiko

Thank you, but that doesn't pertain to what we were doing in this exercise in logic.

or just express some of what you think — Metaphysician Undercover

There's clearly no need for me to post anymore under these circumstances, but thank you.

You're speaking to fellow humans on a Forum. You're also speaking to a machine when you speak to Claude. So, by necessity, it follows that you haven't figured out what I just said. But then I just don't know why your tone is rock-solid confident. — Arcane Sandwich

Believe it or not, there is confidence to be found in understanding uncertainty, but I realize that this idea is very foreign to most people, especially in Western culture.

One of the reasons I explore artificial intelligence is because it is very relevant to this topic and our future. Because of this, I became Microsoft certified, and I am an artificial intelligence researcher.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? I can't wrap my head around it, it's too abstract — Arcane Sandwich

If you would like to understand Thirdness better, perhaps there is some type of complex system you would like to explore. .... Are you familiar with Ilya Prigogine? ... Because of nominalism, time was excluded from classical science. There is a lot to be learned about that by studying Leibniz. The idea was, that for God, everything is there, eternally, so science was focused on static objects, and we inherited all of this in materialism. ... Descartes' philosophy played a decisive role in the development of Leibniz's thought, and much of Descartes 'thought' was based on nominalism's stance that only static, discrete, individual things exist, (per Ockham, otherwise God would not be omnipotent and be able to damn an individual sinner or save an individual saint). .... I have a whole series of learning videos on this topic, in case you are interested. It's all human history, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with 'opinions'. I have found that some people prefer watching videos over reading, so I made some. ... Anyway, Ilya Prigogine wrote a book called 'From Being to Becoming'. His work with dissipative structures and thermodynamics showed that temporal processes mean that existence and being is a necessarily open system (relational). A closed system becomes stagnant and dies. ... Next, you might want to explore the idea of autopoiesis. ... So, to get a 'feel' for what Thirdness is, combine all of that. ... The abstract philosophical and logic aspects of this can be difficult for many people to grasp.

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but it is centuries of history to cover, and time is of the essence in the work that I do.

I’ve discovered your site via your profile and will continue to delve ;-) — Wayfarer

Thanks. I look forward to reading your contributions to threads here.

I literally mean no offense by it. — Arcane Sandwich

No offense taken

I'm — Arcane Sandwich

I understand doubt quite well. As for whatever it is you are reading in me, perhaps that doubt has helped me through more than 50 years of research and study.

Or maybe I'm being naive. — ToothyMaw

Not at all.

No, that's not what I think. Why would you assume that about me? Why would you assume that I have ill intent? I'm being charitable towards you, am I not? Why would it be wrong for me to expect the same courtesy from you? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

I am not assuming that about you at all. I was just being clear. ... My experience has taught me that sometimes that is necessary when someone doesn't take the time to read or get to know the topic better before dismissing it. ... If that does not apply to you, then no worries.

what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me. — Arcane Sandwich

If you really think that I am trying to promote AI in my work, you are sorely mistaken, and there is no reason to discuss this further.

I got ChatGPT to tell me I solved the double-slit experiment once. Needless to say, it turned out to almost certainly be bullshit. — ToothyMaw

If you carefully and thoroughly review my work, you will see how right you are and that nominalism is the problem.

they are not aware of what it is exactly that they are doing, — Arcane Sandwich

You should carefully and thoroughly read it.

Please, can you help me understand just the very concept under discussion here? — Arcane Sandwich

Did you read the link at the bottom of the post?

I am not able to continue this discussion right now (I'm working), but I hope you will read and explore more on your own.

judgment occupies a region on some sort of sweetness continuum. — ToothyMaw

The trickiness lies in the fact that what we call 'concrete' and 'abstract' are not binary but exist along a continuum. Sweet and sweetness, hard and hardness—these different facets of the same relational phenomena, depend on how we interact with them.

Think of how we know of a diamond's hardness. Hardness isn’t revealed in isolation but through an interaction—scratching a diamond against another material or measuring its resistance. This interplay demonstrates the relational nature of what might seem like a static property.

Hard and hardness might follow the same relational logic. Hard is often tied to an immediate sensory experience (Secondness), while hardness is a concept that emerges from systematic comparisons (Thirdness).

The 'hypo' static nature of 'hardness' is quite real, but a nominalist may say this is an unnecessary category (Thirdness) to consider.

Phaneroscopy includes this category in synechistic/phaneroscopic inquiry, phenomenology does not.

Nominalists might gravitate toward phenomenology because it aligns with analyzing discrete, immediate experiences. But phaneroscopy challenges us to consider continuity and relational emergence—how sweet is not isolated but tied to sweetness, and how hard relates to hardness through interactions that reveal their connections.

Habit in autopoietic momentum is a highly important aspect of Thirdness to be aware of. It reveals itself in all complex systems. Our neglect of understanding Thirdness is extremely dangerous. Nominalism is the cause of the blindness.


Something I wrote that might be helpful to read.
https://medium.com/@SarahCTyrrell/a-case-involving-claude-ai-b4b76bd6249e

I would have to buy them. Maybe this coming month when I get my check. — ToothyMaw

They are free to explore on those links, but I know they can be difficult to read without blowing up. And if you're anything like me, you'd want to highlight passages and make notes on the pages.

If any reader of this thread would like to explore Peirce's work, perhaps these links will help.

Writings of Charles S. Peirce: a chronological edition

The Rule of Reason; The Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce

He’s rather well-known for the questions he presents his dialectical companions, the lack of relevant response from one or another of them, would probably make him think twice when it comes to associating himself with philosophers in general. — Mww

Lol ... ok :wink:

Socrates would object in the most strenuous of terms. — Mww

I invite Socrates to join in on my thread about hypostatic abstraction, precisive abstraction, and proper and improper negation. :sparkle:

The problems with Peirce's triadic model become evident in the work of those who have followed him, and actually employ it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I also want to mention here that it is absolutely necessary to study Peirce and not "those who have followed him". It is a severe problem in the arena of Peirce studies that there are all sorts of 'gleanings' of snippets of his work to support ideas that would cause him to jump out of his grave and beat someone over the head.

I used to be on the Peirce Society Listserv, but it didn't take long for me to discover that it was basically ruled by a couple of academics who were clearly mixing up understandings of 'embodied'. Their Cartesian background was bleeding into Peirce's work. ... I explained that I could not accept that and left. They still send me Peirce Society emails and invites, and I appreciate that, but the Cartesian blood was more than I was willing to expose myself to.

I’m obviously not MU, but I asked first. — Mww

So sorry. ... I did not mean to overlook your request.

I do delve into this topic deeply in my essays. I will say that one of the reasons I started the thread about hypostatic abstraction, precisive abstraction, and proper and improper negation is to hopefully demonstrate some of what I write about.

Nominalism is deeply ingrained in Western culture (and the now-global-world in general), and it is very difficult for most to step outside of it and look at its history and influence when they are so influenced by it themselves due to 'thought as a system'. ... We are within what we are trying to examine. Nominalism tends to evoke the idea that the examination is objective. It is a case of recursive smoke and mirrors.

Again, I have written about this extensively. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it in threads here. It's just not a productive use of the forum.

edit: sorry for presuming you to be male.

edit 2: fixed the language I used. — ToothyMaw

No worries, and no need to mention it. I am quite used to that happening when I engage in intellectual discussions that are not in person.

"Sweet" is a concrete concept, whilst "sweetness " is an abstract concept. — RussellA

I like where you are going with this...

What is it about the word 'sweet' that makes it a concrete concept?

Do you mean that we can measure 'sweet', but we cannot measure 'sweetness'?

Can we measure 'hard' in the case of the diamond? Or are we more likely to measure hardness?

See, it's trickier than it seems at first glance.

You seem to have a strong prejudice against nominalism. Why? — Metaphysician Undercover

In the past, I have learned to not go down the nominalism road on this forum. This time, I would like to stay a while.

I can either point you to my essays or post the very long essays in entirety here. Which would you prefer?

I imagine that different readers of this thread will gravitate towards one of the three examples over the others, but there is something that all three examples have in common. ... What they have in common is where we need to focus our investigation into the rewards and pitfalls of hypostatic abstraction.

I believe that phenomenology, especially as developed by Derrida, provides a better ontology of objects by allowing that the sign is the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you ever seen this video? It's been around a while, but no longer rising to the top. ... It talks about some of what you are referring to.
https://youtu.be/GITVPh7GVSE?si=5pgDM9rizZ6rAvyA

Phenomenology is definitely not my cup of tea, due to it being historically influenced by nominalism that was nurtured in the arms of religious theology. ... And Bakhtin had his own religious undertones, but as I mentioned previously, I do not see any of my favorite philosophers as being the end all be all. I have found what I think is a golden trail of breadcrumbs that travels through their combination.

If you decide to watch the video, perhaps it will provide more clues as to where (as the video puts it) I part company with phenomenology. ... There is a second part, a continuation of the video, if you should discover that it interests you.

Other than that, I think Mapping the Medium‘s response is pretty good. — Wayfarer

Thank you. I seem to remember our own discussions from long ago as being quite fruitful. ... Funny, how some us old-timers circle back around and land here again after venturing out into the wilds to gather more for all of us to chew on.