Jerry & All, Too late to start a full discussion, and I will have to dig up some notes that I wrote a long time ago, but here is a collection of links to ideas that I will be taking as fundamental when it comes to sign relations, triadic relations, and relations in general.
http://knol.google.com/k/semeiotic http://mywikibiz.com/Sign_relation http://mywikibiz.com/Triadic_relation http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/RelationTheory.html Also, here's a bit on hypostatic abstraction http://knol.google.com/k/hypostatic-abstraction Tomorrow, maybe ... Jon -- JA = Jon Awbrey JC = Jerry LR Chandler JA: The crux of both the political issue and the semiotic issue rests squarely with the concept of representation. JC: In W1, p. 256, Harvard Lecture VIII, Forms of Induction and Hypothesis, CSP asserts: CSP: "The first distinction we found it necessary to draw - the first set of of conceptions we have to signalize-form a triad Thing Representation Form. CSP: The thing is that for which a representation might stand prescinded from all that would constitute a relation with with any representation. The form is the respect in which a representation might stand for a thing, prescinded from both thing and representation. CSP: We found representations to be of three kinds Signs Copies Symbols CSP: By a symbol I mean one which upon being presented to the mind-without any resemblance to its object and without any reference to a previous convention-calls up a concept." JC: In W1, Lowell Lecture IX, p. 477 CSP: "The first division which we are to attempt to make between different kinds of symbols ought to depend on their intention, what they are specially meant to express-whether their peculiar function is to lie in their reference to its ground, in reference to their object, or their reference to their interpretant. CSP: which has meaning... CSP: so that ... expressing a thing or things in their internal character -" CSP: I quote these earlier assertions (1865, 1866) because they appear to provide the seeds of the trees of relations that CSP was to develop. The nature of representation appears to be a fulcrum between things and forms. (In modern scientific terms, the nature of correspondence relations between facts and narratives.) JC: Jon: How does your notion of political representation ground itself in such assertions? -- facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110 knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1 oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
