Hi Jon, What would you call the whole triadic relation in that case?
I have assumed that Peirce introduced 'representamen' to avoid the potential confusion, but he isn't consistent by any means. (His care about terminology was not always manifested.) I suppose we could use 'sign triplet', being the irreducible triplet containing the sign. What do you think is best? John -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: February 1, 2015 5:48 AM To: Peirce List Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations Sung, List, I think it best to use the word "sign" in a way that relates as naturally as possible to its ordinary use. Of course we expect a technical formalization of an informal concept to sharpen up the root idea and cast new light on its meaning, but we do that all the better to serve the original purpose of using that word. So I can but recommend using "sign" to mean a thing 's' that has an object 'o' and an interpretant sign 'i' in an ordered triple of the form (o, s, i) that is an element of a sign relation L that is a subset of a cartesian product O x S x I, for a given object domain O, sign domain S, and interpretant sign domain I. If you try your suggestion on any other sort of relation, say, the dyadic relations indicated by "brother", "father", "mother", I think you will see the sort of confusion that would be caused. Regards, Jon > An excellent post, Jon. > > So, it may be useful to distinguish between two 'signs' (or > designations) of the sign -- (i) "the Sign" (capital letter S, as > adopted by Edwina) defined as the irreducible set of three elements, > object, representamen, and interpretant, and (ii) "the sign" (small > letter s) defined as synonymous with the representamen. > > If we adopt this convention, the following statement would hold: > > "The Sign is to the sign what a set is to one of its elements." > (013015-10) > > A corollary to Statement (013115-11) would be > > "Conflating the Sign and the sign is akin to conflating a set and its > elements." (013015-11) > > All the best. > > Sung > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Re: John Collier > JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15541 > JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15549 > JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15557 > JC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15565 > > John, List, > > Peirce's concept of determination is apt enough if understood in all > its implications and ramifications, but it does get some interpreters > locked into absolutist, behaviorist, causalist, determinist, > dyadicist, essentialist ways of thinking, especially if they are bent > that way to begin with. > > A less narrow path to understanding is through the concept of > constraint, especially as used in classical cybernetics and mathematical > systems theory. > Constraint is present in a system in measure as the set of likely > occurrences subsets the set of conceivable occurrences. > > Constraint, determination, information, and relation are all affairs > of sets and systems of elements, not single elements taken out of context. > > Sets and systems of elements have properties that their member elements do > not. > That is why it is important to understand a sign relation as a set of > triples, not a single triple. Irreducibility, whether compositional > or projective, is a property of the set, not of individual triples. > > Regards, > > Jon > -- 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 .
