Hi,
(*1*) Information is triadic in that it has three mutually exclusive
aspects --
(i) *amount* (how many bits of information can your USB store ?),
(ii) *meaning* (What is the meaning of this series of DNA nucleotides ?),
and
(iii) *value *(What does this series of DNA nucleotides do for the
Jon, list,
thank you, Jon. Your example is less complicated than mine was. So the elementary relation does not determine the general relation or general relative term. So, both, elementary and general relation do not have a token-type- connection with each other, I think. So it is confusing to
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types
> defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a
> possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and possibly
> this
>> Is the quality of music determined by the final opinion of that music?
>
> My first response is that "in the long run" for Peirce is a normative idea in
> science and does not apply necessarily--maybe only very little, or not at
> all--to the fine arts.
>
> It is true that Bach and
Hello Jon S., Gary F., List,
Jon, given what you say in 1&2 below, then we do have a question. Gary F. says
that qualisigns are always icons, while you say that the icons are always based
on the relation of the sign to the dynamical interpretant.
What, then, should we say about the
Clark,
Are you saying that we should judge music like we judge medicine—e.g., just
because certain music works for me doesn't mean music that doesn't work for me
is bad? Similarly, should we judge music like we judge mathematics relative to
their applications?
Just like I can recognize that a
Jeff, List:
Much of what you wrote in your last message is above my pay grade, but one
comment warrants a brief response.
JD: Gary F. says that qualisigns are always icons, while you say that the
icons are always based on the relation of the sign to the dynamical
interpretant.
This is the
Jon A.S. :
On Dec 8, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> In other words, a qualisign is always and only an icon; it can never be an
> index or a symbol.
Are you missing a critical presupposition here?
What did CSP intend for these three trichotomies?
Is each component of the three
I accidentally hit the send button. I started to re-write it but I'm out
of time now. I won't be able to clean this up, or re-write it, until
tonight. But I did clean up the last sentence so hopefully you know
where I was going with this response.
Matt
On 12/8/15 2:16 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists,
You wrote:
" . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign
types defined in NDTR, (120815-1)
including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible ambiguity
in the concepts of
genuine and degenerate; . . . "
(*1*)
Edwina, Gary F, list,
Edwina, you wrote: The ten classes, as triads, are on the other hand -
embodied, while the 9 Relations are not embodied. Instead, they are three
Relations (R-O, R-R, R-I) and function in each of the three categorical
modes). The Sign, the full triad, on the other hand, is
Gary R - yes, that's a very difficult passage.
First, in my view, the triadic Sign (R-O, R-R, R-I) IS an 'instance of
semiosis'. It can be a molecule, a bird, a song, a word, a cloud, a. Of
course, no existential instance exists per se, alone and isolate; all are
semiosically networked
List,
Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my
opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by
confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce
himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in
Gary R - thanks for this clarification. I agree; the table of 9 are NOT
embodiments.
I consider them the terms for the Relations; eg, in the letters to Lady Welby,
where he writes:
"Now signs may be divided as to their own material nature, as to their
relations to their objects, and as to
14 matches
Mail list logo
