Jerry, list I’m afraid I continue to have a problem understanding your posts.
What do you mean by ‘externally generated signs/objects’? And I think I’m relatively clear about what’s in my mind..eg..when I use such phrases as ‘in my view’ ‘in my understanding’.. And I do reference quotes. And I do explain the Peircean description from my ‘personal’[?] description ..eg..where I show that the function is comparable to the triadic sign. And I’m not comparing this triad and the function--- to Peirce’s graphs!! Why should I think and write using Feferman [ whom I have never read]. My style of thinking??? What’s that? Edwina > On Aug 24, 2025, at 8:46 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > >> On Aug 23, 2025, at 12:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> My view of the above is that this triadic relation can be understood as a >> function where f{x]=y,or, in Peircean terms, : >> >> Representamen [Object]=Interpretant. Why do I compare it to a function? >> Because the semiosic process is not a linear movement of data from site to >> site. >> > > Please allow questions of clarification. > > The gaps between modern usage of notations and terminologies are so deeply > entangled. > > It would be helpful if you would re-phrase your thoughts into expressions > that crisply separate your ascriptions of the (externally) generated > sign/objects. > > Further, it would be helpful if you would re-phrase your thoughts that > originate in your mind as your views of your thoughts about the ascriptions > related to others. > > Further, it would be helpful if you would re-phrase your expression of > descriptions of semosis in such a way as to crisply separate Peircian > descriptions from your personal descriptions. > > A principle source of confusion in this post is the use of modern > mathematical symbolizations based on Fregean and Russellian symbolizations / > conceptualizations. > The notation of the equation, f(x) = y is remote from CSP’s philosophy of > mathematics as related by his multiple forms of graphs derived from term > logic. > > Could you at least attempt to think and write in the Feferman's sense of > “logical particles”? It is a powerful way to clarify the subscriptions of > your style of thinking. > > This language allows one to clearly separate Frege’s fabrications from CSP’s > sentences constructed around the developing notions of graph theory and his > papers on the role of the copula in composing sentences. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
