On 4/5/2016 9:11 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > By the way, since Jon’s diagram is nothing like an Existential Graph, > I don't know why Jon refers to the central unit in it as a “spot.” > Peirce uses that term only in the context of Existential Graphs, > which are also not diagrams of the sign-object-interpretant > relation. >
Gary, List, Peirce's existential graphs are a general calculus for expressing the same subject matter as his earlier logic of relative terms and thus they serve to represent the structures of many-place relations. Cast at that level of generality, there is nothing to prevent them from being used to express the special cases of relative terms that we need in a theory of triadic sign relations, for example, terms like “s stands to i for o” or “__ stands to __ for __” depending on the form one prefers. People sometimes get wigged out about the fact that we have to use sign relations in order to mention sign relations, but the fact is that we do that all the time whether we are using Peirce's semiotics or not. Peirce just makes the process a whole lot clearer than most others do. 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 .
