Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 8

Re: Ontolog ForumFerenc Kovacs

Our thoughts live in natural and artificial languages the
way fish swim in natural and artificial bodies of water.

One of the lessons most strikingly impressed on me by my first year physics course and the mass of collateral reading I did at the time was to guard against the errors that arise from “projecting the properties and structures of any language or symbol system on the external world”.  This was mentioned especially often in discussions of quantum mechanics — it was a common observation that our difficulties grasping wave-particle duality might be due to our prior conditioning to see the world through the lenses of our subject-predicate languages and logics.  Soon after, I learned about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, and today I lump all these cautionary tales under the heading of GRAM (“Grammar Recycled As Metaphysics”).


cc: Ontolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry Driven Systems, Knowledge Representation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Ontology, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 8

  1. Pingback: Survey of Pragmatic Semiotic Information • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.