Jon, List, JA: "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."
GF: Yes indeed, that is the bare minimum. Unfortunately, that still leaves us in the dark as to what you think was wrong with the statement I posted about dicisigns. Was it somehow incompatible with that "bare minimum"? If so, can you tell us how? And now a technical point FOR EVERYONE about posting to peirce-l. This message of yours, Jon, should have been sent to peirce-l ONLY. The other three addresses you sent it to are redundant, since Edwina and I are both on peirce-l, and your post will not make it to the biosemiotics list because you aren't a subscriber to it. This redundancy often occurs on peirce-l when people "Reply to all" and forget to delete all the redundant addresses (leaving only the peirce-l address) before sending the message. This is a bad habit, and will lead to a lot of needless duplication of messages in many mailboxes if we don't all pay some attention to where messages are addressed before we send them . End of sermon. gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2-Sep-14 2:37 PM To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Fuhrman; [email protected]; Peirce List 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
