Being Trivially A Sign
TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14180
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14181
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14183
FS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14201
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14205
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14208
Icons & Indices
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14194
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14196
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14197
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14198
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14200
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14206
Jerry & All,
If I can remember how I got into this ... Tom Gollier split off a thread to
discuss a question from Joseph Brenner about the following fragment that he
attributed to Frederik, the original text and locus of which I do not have:
?FS: an index relies on some actual connections (read: natural interactions)
which are either not in themselves signs (or only trivially so).
After a number of plies and replies on that thread, I recalled some long ago
discussions, diagrams, and bits of an old dissertation proposal that I thought
might serve to clarify the issue at hand, so I split off this meta-tangent to
adduce and apply that material.
To wit:
1. Inquiry Driven Systems • Indexical Signs
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_1#1.3.4.9._Indexical_Signs
2. Information = Comprehension × Extension • Icons and Indices
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension#Commentary_Work_Note_9
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| q o |
| ·· |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · v |
| · o u |
| · / |
| v / |
| x o------@ |
| \ |
| \ |
| o v |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| Sign u is an Icon of Object x by Virtue of Property q |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| Objective Framework | Interpretive Framework |
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
| |
| o u |
| / |
| / |
| x o------@ |
| ^ \ |
| · \ |
| · o v |
| · ^ |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| · · |
| ·· |
| t o |
| |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
| Sign v is an Index of Object x by Virtue of Instance t |
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
I think these types of pictures succeed in illustrating the pertinent points
about icons and indices for those who understand the stylistic conventions under
which they are drawn, so I am mainly interested in pursuing the implications of
what they do depict. The incidental question that has arisen in the meantime,
as to why this class of diagrams should be so opaque to a particular class of
viewers, may also detain us, but I think it constitutes a separate question.
Regards,
Jon
Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
List:
On Sep 21, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
With that understanding, let's focus again on this central piece of the
picture:
S
/
O--<R|
\
I
I would avoid calling that a "4-node network". My training in graph theory
gives the word "network" too many technical connotations that do not fit
the case we are trying to describe.
This diagram and your discussion of it begin to clarify a portion of your
internal structures of representamens with respect to mathematics.
I have a simple question which would further clarify you intended semantic
meaning associated with this symbolic representation of your thoughts on the
semantic origins of Peirce's logic of relatives.
This diagram, I understand it, (an apparently Sung also), is heterogenous
with respect to the categorizations of symbols. That is, O, S, and I
represent symbols with a common meaning.
The middle portion of the symbol, the logical marks "O--<R|", are
heterogeneous with respect to meaning.
My question is: Can you give a geometric interpretation of this form of
diagrammatic logic? Can you describe such a potential geometric form of
representation (of your mental image) as a representamen in semantic terms?
What are the advantages of this notation of relations? What would the
association of a four or five or six or more nodes look like in this notation
of relatives? Or, are all diagrams of this sort constrained to three nodes?
JA:
My training in graph theory gives the word "network" too many technical
connotations that do not fit the case we are trying to describe.
Finally, if you are familiar with CSP's diagram of the ammonia molecule, does
your diagram seek to commute exactly the same form of representation as his
for NH(3)? The differences being the substitution of the "N" (representing
nitrogen) for both the arrow and symbol "RI"? Is this the case you are trying
to describe?
The answers to these questions are critical to communicating your meaning in
relations to the several other existing and widely divergent views of
"diagrammatic logic".
Cheers
Jerry
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
