Jon wrote: "In technical perspective, none of that makes (S090214-1) 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."
I take (S090214-1) to me that "The Peircean sign is a mathematical category." (S090214-2) If (S090214-2) is true, then it would follow that "The Peircean sign is a triad of object, representamen (S090214-3) and interpretant that obeys the composition condition of a mathematical category." In a plane language, (S090214-3) sates that "The composition condition simply means that the (S090214-4) reprsentamen-interpretant relation must be constrained by or is consistent with the representamen-object relation so that there results a non-arbitrary object-interpretant relation." In other words, "The object-representamen-interpretant relation (S090214-5) is one triadic relation." With all the best. Sung __________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > 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 .
