Jon, Solvitur ambulando.
gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Sep-14 4:36 PM 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
