[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

SR.  Discussion Note 2

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

GR = Gary Richmond
JA = Jon Awbrey

Re: SR-COM 4.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/002248.html
In: SR-COM.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/thread.html#2242

Amended here:

JA: | It is frequently useful to approach the concept of an inquiry process
    | as a specialization of a sign relation, in the following 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 can
    |        be said to determine in the fullness of time one or more interpretant signs
    |        with regard 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
    |       qualities of alacrity, brevity, or clarity of the signs on which they work.
    |
    | 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.

GR, quoting JA:

JA: 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.

GR: A profound truth (in my opinion), perfectly well stated.  Your analysis 
    here brings to my mind the great chasm existing between dyadic semiology
    and triadic semeiotic, just for example.

Thanks, Gary.  It's an organization of the subject matter between
signs relations and inquiry processes that I frequently recur to,
and its does contain some remedies against the tenacious tendency
to regress semiotics back to the level of 2-adic relations.  For
a naturalist like myself, who thinks that everything that keeps on
happening is natural, it is a complementary consideration to think
how everything in nature may be causally related to everything else,
and to that extent everything is a potentially an index of everything
else.  In a dual consideration, we may think how everything in nature
shares at least one quality with everything else in nature, and so
everything is potentially and icon of everything else in some way.
But these are consideration are based on purely 2-adic relations
and their virtues as icons and indices must still be remitted in
the receipt of an interpretant sign before we have a full-fledged
sign relation.

Jon Awbrey

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