Inquiry Blog
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/28/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-1/
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/28/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-2/
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/29/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-3/
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/30/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-4/
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-5/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18558
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18562
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18565
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18568
JC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18570
John, List,
Precisely. And “artefact” is a very choice word here, with all
the right connotations. It would be unfortunate if this trivial
“triskelion” figure became a caltrop to our thought, blocking the
way of inquiry. Aside from the ellipses we added to call attention
to a couple of derivative dyadic relations, somewhat loosely called
“denotative” and “connotative” in our paper, it is merely typical of
the 3-spoke figures in common use when I was first learning Peirce's
theory of signs, often arising to point out the differences between
Saussure's dyadic semiology and Peirce's triadic semiotics. But the
intervening decades have taught me mostly all the ways that diagrams
and figures of that sort can be misinterpreted when the conventions
of interpretation needed to understand them are not up and running.
It can be instructive to carry out post mortems on the various maps
of misreading, though. If one is not up for the morbidity of that
then it is probably wiser to move on to more viable representations.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/5/2016 12:11 AM, John Collier wrote:
> I strongly agree, Jon. Reading meaning into artefacts
> of the representation is not typically transparent.
> I would say that the whole symbol represents the sign
> with its threefold character and that the node is not
> some separate signifier. To put it on this level is,
> as you suggest, a category error.
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
Date: 2016/04/04 00:04 (GMT+02:00)
To: Peirce List <[email protected]>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation
Peircers,
Questions about the meaning of the “central hub” in the
“three-spoked” picture of an elementary sign relation
have often come up, just recently among Jerry Chandler's
questions and a question Mary Libertin asked on my blog.
Maybe the answer I gave there can help to clear that up:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2%80%A2-5/#comment-32800
The central “spot”, as Peirce called it [in his logical graphs],
is located on a different logical plane, since it is really a
place-holder for the whole sign relation or possibly for the
individual triple. Normally I would have labeled it with a
letter to indicate the whole sign relation, say L, or else
the individual triple, say ℓ = (o, s, i).
Regards,
Jon
On 3/31/2016 1:24 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Post : Systems Of Interpretation • 5
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%e2%80%a2-5/
Date : March 31, 2016 at 10:24 am
Subthread:
MB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
EVD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18553
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18554
Mike, Val, Jerry, List,
Here is the revised edition of my last comment on the order issue.
(I am hoping I can get to the rest of Jerry's questions eventually.)
Figure 2. An Elementary Sign Relation (and see attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif
An elementary sign relation is an ordered triple (o, s, i).
It is called ''elementary'' because it is one element of a
sign relation L ⊆ O × S × I, where O is a set of objects,
S is a set of signs, and I is a set of interpretant signs
that are collectively called the ''domains'' of the relation.
But what is the significance of that ordering?
In any presentation of subject matter we have to distinguish
the natural order of things from the order of consideration or
presentation in which things are taken up on a given occasion.
The natural order of things comes to light through the discovery
of invariants over a variety of presentations and representations.
That type of order tends to take a considerable effort to reveal.
The order of consideration or presentation is often more arbitrary,
making some aspects of the subject matter more salient than others
depending on the paradigm or perspective one has chosen.
In the case of sign relations, the order in which we take up
the domains O, S, I or the components of a triple (o, s, i)
is wholly arbitrary so long as we maintain the same order
throughout the course of discussion.
Regards,
Jon
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
-----------------------------
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 .
