List, Sung,
This diagram is not of a Peircean triad, but of reducible dyadic Sausserian
communication. Of course in this system it works out as Sung describes, but it
is not relevant to Peircean semiotics.
John
From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Sungch
Ben, List,
I believe that a weaker is required for an ordered triple. Any finite set can
be ordered. The Axiom of Choice, which is controversial, implies that any set
including infinite ones can be ordered. The order need not be anything like
'more' or 'less' in any intuitive sense. For example
At 08:50 PM 1/28/2015, Jon Awbrey wrote:
This is common misconception of life as semiotics.
HP: Without some evidence here, I would consider this misconception
only one opinion. Many others say life and semiotics are coextensive.
JA: A more pragmatic understanding of the process would regard
Howard, List,
Computer problems of a recalcitrant sort are forcing me to work on my phone,
phor which my phingers are phar too phat and the auto-mis-speller is a constant
source of transcription travesty.
The pre-mutated text was:
“This is a common misconception of life as semiosis.”
I wasn'
Gary R., lists,
Thanks, Gary.
The discussion of semiotic determination at the Wikipedia Peirce article
were originally written by others including Jon Awbrey and then edited
by me. I've shown the URLs in the links in the footnotes so that they'll
be accessible in the I.U. archive.
http://en
John,
Much as I admire your expertise in philosophy, I am afraid you missed the
key point of the diagrams in my previous post you refer to:
"The commutative triangle representation of communication diagrammed
(012915-1)
in Figures 1 and 2 of my previous post embodies both Saussurean
Gary R., lists,
I just noticed further discussion of semiotic determination in the fifth
or so paragraph in the linked section in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#Triadic_signs
This paragraph was my rewrite of a paragraph that explained signs in
terms of Peirce's article "Wha
I find this a bit weird, Gary and Edwina. Perhaps it is just the fine details.
I once published
This requires a triadic production of what Peirce calls the interpretant, a
relation in which the sign (representamen) bears some variety of correspondence
to its reference through the immediate objec
John C., Jeff, lists,
John, You're right, in the sense of 'ordered pair' (e.g., such that, in
set theory, _/relation/_ is defined as ordered pair), it's true that
there's no intuitive sense of 'more' or 'less' or 'earlier' or 'later'
to which the relation appeals as a rule. Every arbitrary seq
Ben, List,
I guess I have trouble making sense of the notion of determination here. I know
you are saying what Peirce says; that isn’t at issue for me. What bothers me is
that without an interpretant there is no representamen, so the interpretant is
necessary for the representamen. It isn’t suf
Howard, lists,
For my part, your question is difficult for two reasons: 1. I don't know
much about biology, and 2. Peirce gets complicated when he considers the
semiotics of commands.
One could consider the protein as a dynamic interpretant from the
viewpoint of the protein. From the viewpoi
John, list,
The ordinary dictionary definition of the transitive verb “determine” as used
in logic is ‘to limit in scope’ (OED), ‘to set limits to’ (as the etymology
would suggest), or (you might say) ‘to constrain the form of’. I don’t see that
Peirce’s usage in his definition of “sign” dep
John C., lists,
John, you wrote,
I guess I have trouble making sense of the notion of determination
here. I know you are saying what Peirce says; that isn’t at issue
for me. What bothers me is that without an interpretant there is no
representamen, so the interpretant is necessary fo
out the window, through gently falling snow,
a chickadee hammers at a sunflower seed
on a bare branch of our crab apple tree —
it heartens me to see that there remains
one intelligent creature left on earth.
jon awbrey
29 jan 2015
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word
Jeff, List,
A good place to begin again may be here:
“On the Algebra of Logic” [Am. J. Math. 3, 15–57 (1880)]
[3.] The Logic of Relatives
[3.1.] Individual and Simple Terms
[CP 3.214.]
Just as we had to begin the study of Logical Addition and Multiplication
by considering ∞ and 0, terms wh
John, List:
> For example in a function, like f=ma, is an ordered pair, one from one
> domain and another from another domain such that their product is in another
> domain which is the range of the function.
Huh?
Yes, as stated, I agree with your sentence.
And that a function can be defin
Ben,
Thanks for providing this and the other materials in your previous message
on Peirce's use of determination in semiotic contexts. While I'm familiar
with much of it, it's all worth a fresh re-reading, and having it in an
(almost) single place is most helpful.
By the way, Nattiez is a French
Jerry, I specifically referred to the Newtonian interpretation as an example,
which you excised. My point was that the ordering here does not imply any
intuitive order in terms of greater or less than.
The order of the numbers in the domains is a separate issue from the ordering
of the paramet
18 matches
Mail list logo
