Jon - I don't think that not using mathematics in an analysis of Peircean
semiosis is analagous to an 'informal discussion' . And I don't think that
the analysis that goes on in both the Peirce-l and the biosemiotics lists on
Peircean semiosis is focused on 'individual objects, individual signs,
individual triples..and their classification. I can't recall that this has
been done and don't see the point. Indeed, I consider that the debates on
both lists are much deeper and more complex than that - exploring the
development of life and evolution, exploring the nature of cognitive
processes etc.. But- that's just my impression.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gary Fuhrman" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Peirce
List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:36 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13843
Edwina,
I think we have to recognize the difference between informal discussions
and technical discussions.
Skewly akin to that is the difference between scriptural
hermeneutics and scientific theorizing.
In casual discussions of semiotics we tend to focus on individual objects,
individual signs, or at
most individual triples of the form (object, sign, interpretant), and we
speak of classifying the
sign according to its properties and relations in that context.
In technical perspective, none of that makes much sense. A sign relation
is a set of triples of the
form (object, sign, interpretant). The things that participate in that
sign relation have the roles
they have only on account of the places they take in that sign relation.
That is just the bare minimum of what it will take to make any progress in
semiotics.
Regards,
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I agree with your comment, Jon, that there is a lack of understanding of
'a relation', a 'triadic relation' and a 'triadic sign relation'. BUT,
since many of us who acknowledge the analysis of Peirce are not
mathematicians, then surely, there is some way to arrive at such an
understanding without also being a mathematician.
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gary Fuhrman" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
"Peirce List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:54 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
Re: Edwina Taborsky
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13840
Edwina,
Setting terminology aside for just a moment, there is at present a
general lack of understanding as
to what constitutes (1) a relation, (2) a triadic relation, (3) a
triadic sign relation. Those
subjects are treated by Peirce in his logic of relative terms and the
corresponding mathematics of
relations, all of which is clear enough in his early papers. Without
a grasp of that background,
most of what he writes later is doomed to be mis-interpreted.
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
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
.
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
