Looking at Tomasz Duma’s Article (2023) “The Specificity of Secundum Dici Relations…” (Part 12 of 14)
0108 How does explicit and implicit abstraction apply to the category-based nested form.
0109 I now go through explicit, then implicit abstraction, for each of the three categories.
To start, the category-based nested form is a triadic relation. Triadic relations implicate implicit abstraction.
The category-based nested form entails explicit abstraction, because it is a specific application of Peirce’s category of thirdness. Thirdness is the realm of normal contexts, signs, mediations and so forth. Each of these triadic reations may be diagrammed as “empty-slot” relational structures. Then, the inquirer enters explicit abstractions into the empty-slots.
Accordingly, a diagram of the category-based diagram offers a general (universal and transcendental) example of dici(speech-alone talk)(as form) in contiguity with Peirce’s definition of thirdness (as relation).
The following dyad displays two real elements: a general way of articulating the category-based nested form,(corresponding to form) and what is implicated by a relation among Peirce’s categories (occupying the slot for matter) in the manner of relationes secundum dici (speech-alone talk).
Even though this relationes secundum dici (speech-alone talk) appears legitimate, this dyad goes into the dicey bucket.
0110 What happens when I bring the form from the dicey bucket (B) over to the slot for matter in the esse bucket (B)?
In this instance, a formalized diagram of a category-based nested form containing elements of speech-alone talk is treated as if it is has the same semiotic qualities as hand talk. The articulated diagram of Peirce’s secondness (dici (speech-alone talk)) now acts like matter, substantiating a specific relational expression (like form) for relationes secundum dici (hand talk).
In the following figure, the relation (form) expresses the ways that the logic of the normal context expresses itself as an explicit abstraction, even though its realness manifests as an implicit abstraction.
This is an example of a dyad in the esse bucket.
The logics of the normal context comes to the fore as form for the implicit abstraction, because thirdness (matter for explicit abstraction) presents itself as a category-based nested form (form for explicit abstraction and matter for implicit abstraction).
So, the above figures picture a transit from the dicey to the esse bucket.
One transit from explicit to implicit abstraction starts with a relationes (in the slot for matter, for explicit abstraction, A), proceeds through dici (speech-alone talk, first as form, B, and then as matter for hand-talk, B), to a relationes (in the slot for form, for implicit abstraction, C).
0111 Is this how a relation (A), in our current Lebenswelt, somehow “translates” into various innate operations of implicit abstraction, consisting of mental adaptations to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C)?
Or, is this how dici (speech-alone talk) (B) corresponds to a relation in our current Lebenswelt (A), while performatively activating a phenotypic relation adapted to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C)?