Post : Systems Of Interpretation • 9
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/09/systems-of-interpretation-%e2%80%a2-9/
Date : April 9, 2016 at 10:30 pm
Peircers,
I had a feeling there was a deeper question embedded in
Jerry's questions about order, and a nagging sense it had
all come up several times before, but it took me a few days
to put a response into fresh words. At any rate, here is my
latest best try ...
Figure 2. An Elementary Sign Relation (attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif
Re: Peirce List Discussion
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
• Jerry Chandler
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552
It is above all important to understand that Peirce's concept
of a sign relation is defined at a higher order of abstraction
than any notion of causal or temporal order.
A sign relation L ⊆ O × S × I is a structure that can
''generate'' temporal sequences of signs that make up
a semiotic process but there is no necessary temporal
order associated with the relational domains O, S, I
nor with the roles of objects, signs, and interpretant
signs in any triple of the form (o, s, i) ∈ L.
As it happens, generative relationships between
a generating structure and a generated class of
structures are very common throughout mathematics
and hardly unique to semiotics.
References
==========
• Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“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
• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999),
“Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations”,
http://cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm
• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (May 2001),
“Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”,
http://org.sagepub.com/content/8/2/269.abstract
On 4/3/2016 6:04 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
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 .
