3rd Man Falacy again

should spend more time auto-referencing http://riswey.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-limits-3rd-man-falacy-just-do-it.html

I thought I had recalled this but evidently not. At college I was annoyed to get a 3rd grade for an essay on Berkley which I decided to do as an argument against the man himself, except to the annoyance of my lecturer I did it as a dialogue between Socrates and Berkley without paying attention to any of the rules of Socratic dialogues. I redid it reluctantly as a regular essay from the books and got a 2.1. What annoyed me is that the argument I spent two days thinking about got last in all this formal bullshit and I have no record of it save a few vague "ideas" ironically. Its actually an argument against British Empiricism in its entirety and is a proto SRH argument hence the interest now...

In empiricism everything begins with experience, especially vision. Words name "images" and the meaning of words is the link to these "images" that we record in the mind. When we think of a tree we recall the image of a tree. (I need revise this for exactitude when I have time.)

The argument involved the idea for "red". I have a remembered picture, ironically, of me examining the boundary between two red areas in my vision. They are "red" the Empiricists say because they both share the idea "red". This is what I examined for two days.

Damn can't remember for now. Why didn't my idiot lecturer keep the original essay which is 10000 times more useful than the generic rubbish he wanted. No wonder I quickly got frustrated with pointless Universities for the second time! Shall try and remember the rest...

I think it was a simple version of the 3rd Man Falacy which argues that the unity of similar things can't be because they share a thing. If they do then what is that thing? Naturally we say that it is the same type as which they share and so we have a third thing. Two separate men being similar because they share manhood. That manhood which they embody itself one may concieve of as a man and so we have three men. The SRH is similar because whenever a relation is stated between two things it creates a third thing - but the SRH states that the third thing cannot be the same type as the two things (which is where Plato and the Empiricists fell short). It is this synthesis which ensures that the SRH keeps breaking systems. A self-reflexive system thus breaks itself because reflexivity cannot occur within the system since it is a "relation" onto itself.

--> I don't think it was this but is it that the "idea of red" can't itself be an idea? That would be SRH. I wonder what the original idea was? 15years ago got to dig up mental archive from.