Subthread:
MB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
EVD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18548
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18549
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18551
Peircers,
For its pertinence to the present discussion, here again is what
Peirce wrote about the mathematical way of using individual or
particular cases to make general hypotheses or suppositions.
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/22/mathematical-demonstration-the-doctrine-of-individuals-1/
And just so we don't forget that Peirce's theory of individuals
is not the run-of-the-mill absolute sort but makes the quality
of individuality relative to the context of discussion or the
“frame of reference” as they say in physics, here is what he
wrote about that:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/23/mathematical-demonstration-the-doctrine-of-individuals-2/
Regards,
Jon
On 3/23/2016 10:30 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Mike, Val, List,
That “triskelion” stick-figure for an elementary sign relation
or individual triple (o, s, i) is about the simplest possible.
There are some problems with the sketch — we should have used
lower case o, s, i to label the termini of the triple rather
than the upper case O, S, I that are conventionally used to
denote sets — but let's pass over past si(g)ns in silence.
Returning to the cryptkeeper's archive, we used a less skeletal
figure in an earlier paper to articulate the commonalities that
Peirce's sign relations share with their archetype in Aristotle:
Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1995-figure-1.png
Here is the corresponding passage from “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). (De Interp. i. 16a4).
</QUOTE>
Reference
=========
Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
It's getting late, I'll discuss the details tomorrow ...
Jon
On 3/23/2016 5:15 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Mike, Val, Peircers,
Let's start as simply as possible. The following figure is typical
of those I've been using to illustrate sign relations from the days
when I was first learning about Peirce's logic and theory of signs:
An Elementary Sign Relation
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif
That variant comes from a paper Susan Awbrey and I published in 2001,
the earlier conference version of which is copied at the Arisbe site:
http://org.sagepub.com/content/8/2/269.abstract
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm
As the drafter of that drawing I can speak with authority about the
artist's intentions in drawing it and also about the conventions of
interpretation that formed the matrix of its gestation and delivery.
Just by way of refreshing my own memory, here is how we set it up:
| Figure 2 represents an "elementary sign relation".
| It is a single transaction that takes place among
| three entities, the object o, the sign s, and the
| interpretant i, and it is usually represented by
| means of the ordered triple (o, s, i).
One of the interpretive conventions implied in that sort of setup
is a very old one indeed. It goes back to the earliest styles of
presentation in mathematics. Namely, one draws a figure that is
intended as “representative” of many figures. Being drawn as it
must be, the figure is imperfect, individual, peculiar, special,
but it is intended to be taken as a representative of its class:
generic, ideal, typical.
That is the main convention of interpretation that goes into
giving diagrams, figures, and graphs their significant power.
More later on ...
Jon
On 3/23/2016 9:56 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Mike, Val, List,
Diagrams and figures, like all signs, can be useful in communicating
their intended interpretant signs and thus in coordinating attention
to their intended objects, but only in communities of interpretation
that comprehend their conventions of interpretation. Conventions of
interpretation are, by comparison, far more difficult to communicate.
So one of the prerequisites to the possibility of communication
in this area would be to ask ourselves what are the conventions
of interpretation enabling this species of diagrams and figures.
I will get back to that after a 2ndness or 3rdness of coffee ...
Cheers,
Jon
On 3/22/2016 6:20 PM, E Valentine Daniel wrote:
Hello Mike, Edwina, Jerry, fellow-archivists among the P-Listers:
I notice that Mike's table of threes was accompanied by a diagrammatic
representation of the sign (with its three constitutive correlates)
by a space-enclosing equilateral triangle. Peirce never used this
particular diagrammatic representation but used instead the diagram
of a three prongs converging/diverging in/from a point to represent
the triadic sign. In addition to being more effective (and truer-to-
Peirce) representation, not only of the sign qua sign but also as the
best opening gambit for representing semiosis itself, some contributors
to that deeply archived conversation provided the list with many other
logical and philosophical reasons and arguments in favor of the three-
pronged representation of the signs over the triangular representation
of same. Is there anyone on the list who, per chance, either saved
that particular discussion or can lead me to that string of yester-year?
Besides being personally grateful to such a lead I also think that it
would shed critical light of the table provided by Mike.
Thank you.
val daniel
E. Valentine Daniel Professor of Anthropology
Columbia University 1200 Amsterdam Avenue New York, NY 10027
(212) 854-7764
[email protected]
--
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 .
