[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Commentary

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

SR.  Commentary Note 4

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

It is commonly useful to approach the concept
of an "inquiry driven system" in three phases:

   1.  A "sign relation" simpliciter, L c O x S x I, could be just about
       any 3-adic relation on the arbitrary domains O, S, I, so long as
       it satisfies one of the adequate definitions of a sign relation.

   2.  A "sign process" is a sign relation plus a significant sense of transition.
       This means that there is a definite, non-trivial sense in which a sign
       determines its interpretant signs with respect to its objects.
       We often find ourselves writing "<o, s, i>" as "<o, s, s'>
       in such cases, where the semiotic transition s ~> s'
       takes place in respect of the object o.

   3.  An "inquiry process" is a sign process that has value-directed transitions.
       This means that there is a property, a quality, or a scalar value that can
       be associated with a sign in relation to its objects, and that the transit
       from a sign to an interpretant in regard to an object occurs in such a way
       that the value is increased in the process.  For example, semiotic actions
       like inquiry and computation are directed in such a way as to increase the
       "alacrity", "brevity", or "clarity" of the signs on which they operate.

All in all, sign relations are not limited to purely linguistic types of systems.
They encompass the data of the senses, natural signs, and plastic representation,
just to name some randomly-chosen species of this very widely disseminated genus.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o