Cf: Sign Relations • Discussion 10 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/09/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-10/
Re: Cybernetics • Klaus Krippendorff • Bernard Scott Re: Ontolog • Mihai Nadin • John Sowa • Alex Shkotin Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien • Edwina Taborsky Dear Colleagues, While engaged in a number of real and imaginary dialogues with people I continue to owe full replies, I thought it might be a good time to stand back and take in the view from this vantage point. I summed up the desired outlook a few days ago in the following way. “The important thing now is to extend our perspective beyond one sign at a time and one object, sign, interpretant at a time to comprehending a sign relation as a specified set of object, sign, interpretant triples embedded in the set of all possible triples in a specified context.” If we now comprehend each sign relation L as an extended collection of triples (o, s, i), where each object o belongs to a set O of objects, each sign s belongs to a set S of signs, each interpretant i belongs to a set I of interpretants, and the whole sign relation L is embedded as a subset in the product space O × S × I, then our level of description ascends to the point where we take whole sign relations of this sort as the principal subjects of classification and structural analysis. Once we adopt a whole systems perspective on sign relations we begin to see many commonplace topics in a fresh light. Agency ====== That Peirce remodels his theory of semiosis from speaking of interpretive agents to speaking of interpretant signs is a familiar theme by now. By way of reminder, we discussed this transformation just recently in Discussion 4 and Discussion 5 of this series. But we have to wonder: Why does Peirce make this shift, this change of basis from interpreters to interpretants? He does it because the idea of an interpreter stands in need of clarification and the way he advises to clarify ideas is to apply the pragmatic maxim. The result is an operational definition of an interpreter in terms of its effects on signs in relation to their objects. It would seem we have replaced an interpreter with a sign relation. More precisely, we are taking a sign relation as our effective model for the interpreter in question. Now we must not take this the wrong way. There is no suggestion of reducing the hypostatic agent to a particular sign relation. It falls within our capacity merely to clarify our concept of the agent to a moderate degree, to construct a model or a representation capturing aspects of the agent's activity bearing on a particular application. With that I’ve run out of time for today. The topic for next time will be Context ... References ========== Pragmatic Maxim https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ Sign Relations • Discussion 4 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/15/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-4/ Sign Relations • Discussion 5 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/16/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-5/ Sign Relations • Discussion 8 https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/07/02/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-8/ Regards, Jon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
