Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14194
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14196
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14197
Sung & All,
In Awbrey & Awbrey (1995)
☞ https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
we used Figure 1
☞ http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/images/0/01/Aristotle%27s_Sign_Relation.gif
to illustrate the following text from Aristotle's "On Interpretation".
<quote>
Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions
(pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words spoken.
As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the
mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs (semeia),
are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the objects (pragmata) of
which those affections are representations or likenesses, images, copies
(homoiomata).
</quote> (Aristotle, De Interp. i. 16a4).
Depending on the order of introduction in a given discussion, one could say that
the text is an interpretant of the diagram, as we used it here, or one could say
that the diagram is an interpretant of the text, as we used it there. The order
of introducing objects, signs, and interpretant signs is an accident of rhetoric
and not of the essence in defining the triadic sign relation.
With that understanding, let's focus again on this central piece of the picture:
S
/
O--<R|
\
I
I would avoid calling that a "4-node network". My training in graph theory
gives the word "network" too many technical connotations that do not fit the
case we are trying to describe.
For one thing, the <R| piece is intended to denote the entire sign relation
under discussion, and that exists at a very different level of abstraction from
the respective referents of the O, S, I pieces of the picture. This is true
whether you take the relation R "in extension", as a set of ordered triples of
the form (o, s, i) or whether you take the relation R "intensionally", as the
necessary and sufficient property that is borne in common by all those triples.
For another thing, the technical use of the tern "network" tends to lead techies
and others to read the line between O and R as referring to a dyadic relation,
and similarly for the other two lines, and to think that the triadic relation
denoted by "R" is somehow composed of or reducible to a compound of those three
dyadic relations. Down that road of dyadic intentions the triadic sign relation
goes all to hell.
Enough sermon for a Sunday morning ...
Jon
Sungchul Ji wrote:
Jon,
I like your diagram, Figure 1, which differs somewhat from mine, Figure 2.
As you can see both these diagrams are 4-node networks. One of the
differences between Figures 1 and 2, however, is that S is located at the
periphery in the former while it is at the hub in the latter. This
topological difference may or may not be of fundamental significance.
Another difference may be that, in Figure 1, the triadic sign relation <R|
is a part of the diagram, whereas, in figure 2, it is represented by the
whole diagram itself. (The R appearing in Figure 2 is not "Relation" but
"representamen", as you know.)
S
/
O--<R|
\
I
Figure 1. Jon's diagram for the Peircean sign.
R
/
O---S
\
I
Figure 2. Sung' diagram for the Peirecan sign. R = representamen,
not "triadic relation", <R|.
With all the best.
Sung
--
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 .
