[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 18

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 16.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003164.html
In: FOLG-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

Joe, Peirce List,

Another sort of involvement that might be involved here,
would be some type of syntactic involvement, for example,
the way that a sentence involves various parts of speech,
according to one's favorite theory of grammar.  In general,
this involves the analysis, or, as they say in linguistics,
the "parsing" of a complex sign into simpler signs, along
with the accounting of the grammatical categories that are
by dint of grammatical rules and regularities involved in
the parse.

For example, we have a tradition in semantics that claims the prevalence
of a very strong form of iconic relation between the sign and the object,
saying that the function of language is to maintain this iconic relation.
Succinctly said, their formula is this:  "The meaning of the composition
is the composition of the meanings".  That is, the meaning of a compound
sign, like a sentence, is compounded from the meanings of its components
according to specific rules of composition.  The upshot is that the form
of the object is mirrored in the form of syntax that serves to denote it.
Although this tradition claims descent from Frege, I haven't yet had the
time to look into whether Frege himself was quite so similarly persuaded.

I do know, however, that the explanation of sign relations in general
by way of any such 2-adic mirror relations, whether we put the mirror
between signs and objects or between signs and interpretants, amounts
to radical reduction of 3-adic sign relations to compounds of 2-adics.

Been there, done that, so let's not go there, not again.

There are, however, other forms of syntactic complexity and involvement,
and less reductionist claims about the part they play in sign relations,
that might well be explored here, so I will consider some of those next.

Jon Awbrey

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