[Inquiry] Re: Questions Involving Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

QUIPS.  Discussion Note 48

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

AB = Auke van Breemen
JA = Jon Awbrey

AB: For me an important question in cases like this is:
    But what is the dynamical object we try to understand
    with the definition?  Is it the sign or the process of
    semiosis?  If one concentrates on the latter, it could be
    wise to start with the argument, that is with thinking or
    the succesion of signs.  

AB: As Jon stated in a recent mail:

JA: Nor do I estimate nodding allusions to portraits and weather-vanes,
    which are after all but isolated examples of single signs that are
    torn from the context of their larger sign relations, as anywhere
    near comparable to the extensive samples of sign relations that
    are necessary to begin anything approaching a full analysis.

AB: That is the reason why I study design processes.  They enable me to
    keep hold of the connections between subsequent expressions of the
    intended goal and to study the transitions.  The design process
    leading up to a weathervane or a portrait being not, on account
    of the signs it are, less interesting than other processes.

Auke,

This is the very point of view also of normative sciences,
like cybernetics, engineering, logic, and systems science.
A sexier name for "normative science" is "design science".
Let me suggest -- what I peirce-istently suggest and what
you no doubt already know -- that it's a good idea here
to remember the manifold nuances of the Greek "pragma",
that means "object" also in the sense of "objective",
that is to say, "telos".

Jon Awbrey

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