Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13894
Gary,
Classifications of the sciences have their utility in guiding inquiry, not as defences against it.
I have used the adjective "consequential" merely to emphasize some of the things we look for in a
good definition, one that serves inquiry into the matter at hand. One property of a good definition
is that we can draw consequences from it. Peirce's definition of a sign relation, for example, when
fleshed out by definitions of terms like "correspondence" and "determination" as Peirce elsewhere
used them, allows us to draw both logical and practical consequences of being a sign relation, not
too incidentally, all in accord with the pragmatic maxim. Another property of a good definition is
the definite information it gives us for deciding what does and what does not fall under it, and the
most constructive of definitions will even instruct us, as it were, in how to construct concrete
examples of the things it describes.
I hope that serves as a rough guide for telling definitions that are consequential from those that
are inconsequential.
Regards,
Jon
Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Jon, you can make claims like this until the cows come home, but there is
no reason to accept them until you provide a consequential definition of
"consequential definition".
Semiotics (unlike mathematics) is a positive science dealing with real
relations, and no preformulated definition can furnish the collateral
observation of them required for meaningful propositions about them.
(The same goes for any other term naming a real entity.) Important
as your work may be, and generous as you are in making it available
to us, you can't reasonably propose it as a prerequisite for
understanding what NP (or Peirce) tells us about relations.
gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 3-Sep-14 10:16 PM
Re: "it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic relations are
signs vs. the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations."
Frederik & All,
People may speculate until the proverbial cows come home, but questions
like these cannot be addressed, much less answered, without bringing
consequential definitions of relations to bear.
I have made several efforts at basic expositions along these lines
and will send links to them by separate posts.
Regards,
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 .
